💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000705.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:34:09.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Red & Black Revolution
A magazine of libertarian communism
Issue 1 October 1994
Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement
Trade Union Fightback
The lessons to be learned
The Programme for National Recovery,
launched in October 1987, was the
culmination of almost a year of talks
between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions
and the then Fianna Fail government led by
Charlie Haughey. It was a three-year deal
which committed the trade union movement to
industrial peace in return for 'moderate'
pay increases (i.e less than inflation), tax
reform, and government action on
unemployment. Pointing to the situation in
Britain where Thatcher had decimated trade
union organisation, ICTU leaders claimed
that the deal would protect the movement
here from similar attacks from the right.
It was sold to workers on the basis that by
accepting pay increases which were lower
than inflation, this would help the
government to get the public finances under
control and that as a result of this jobs
would be created. Despite the fact that
within days of the Programme's launch (at a
Press reception attended by the entire
Fianna Fail cabinet and the leadership of
ICTU) the government announced a massive
round of public service cuts, and despite
the fact that the Programme itself
specifically endorsed job losses in the
public sector, ICTU leaders heralded the PNR
as a victory for the trade union movement.
What ICTU failed to point out was that the
only side which had given specific
commitments in the deal was the trade
unions. While pay increases were
specifically pegged at rates which were well
below expected inflation - with no review
for at least two years - commitments by
government and employers were couched in
vague and generalised terms. Indeed, it
would be more correct to describe them as
aspirations rather than commitments. The
deal was opposed by some on the grounds that
it was a poor deal, that more could have
been achieved with stronger negotiators.
Others - including the WSM - opposed the
very notion of the trade union leadership
doing centralised deals with government and
employers over the heads of the members.
So began what was to become known as "social
partnership", leading to The Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (1991 - 1993)
and the current deal the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (due to run until
the end of 1996). Each succesive deal has
brought ICTU closer and closer to the
government - to the extent that it is no
exaggeration to describe them as being the
third arm of the current Fianna Fail/Labour
coalition government. All of the
consequences pointed out by the deals'
opponents back in 1987 have come to
fruition.
When the Programme for National Recovery
(PNR) was proposed for ratification by the
Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) in
October 1987, organised opposition was
negligible. Most of the left appeared to be
almost unaware of the long term consequences
of the bureaucrats' adoption of "social
partnership" and only about a dozen
independent socialists, Trotskyists and
anarchists got together to run a limited
campaign, producing no more than a couple of
thousand leaflets and posters.
At the beginning of the PNR's third and
final year, ICTU held a special conference
(February 8th 1990) to discuss its continued
involvement in the Programme. To coincide
with this conference, the Portobello
Unemployed Action Group (PUAG) organised a
public meeting under the title "Withdraw
from the Programme; Fight the Cuts " .
This meeting attracted no more than twenty
people - including most of those involved in
the 1987 campaign. Yet from this small
beginning, it was decided to establish a
campaign to work for the rejection of a PNR
MarkII.
Over the following months, Trade Unionists
and Unemployed against the Programme (TUUAP)
was established and managed to build a
campaign which attracted the sponsorship of
over 300 trade union activists across most
unions - both public and private sector
-with groups in over a dozen towns and
cities. Although the number of campaign
activists was considerably smaller than
this, TUUAP organised two successful
conferences (one of which was attended by
over 130 people) and public meetings in at
least 10 different venues. In the 3-week
period before the vote on the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (PESP) almost
100,000 leaflets were distributed. In
addition local TUUAP groups in several areas
produced their own leaflets and sectoral
leaflets were distributed among INTO, TUI,
Public Sector and Building workers.
TUUAP brought together shop stewards and
activists from SIPTU, ATGWU, IDATU, TUI,
INTO, ASTI, MSF, CWU, CPSU, IMPACT, AEU,
ETU, NEETU, NUSMW, AGEMOU, UCATT, GMBTU,
BATU, EEPTU, NGA, PNA, PSEU, NUJ, BFAWU,
UMTTIE as well as unemployed activists from
Dublin, Thurles, Clonmel and Portlaoise.
Groups were established in Dublin, Cork,
Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Dungarvan,
Shannon, Clonmel, Thurles, Portlaoise,
Dundalk, Drogheda and Letterkenny. Public
meetings were held around the country,
factories were leafletted, motions brought
to branch meetings and to trades councils.
For the first time in years there was the
genesis of a challenge to the leadership's
thinking.
In Dublin, the TUUAP group met fortnightly -
and weekly when required. Attendances varied
somewhat but there was always a minimum of
between 15 and 20, with an average
attendance of 25 to 30. There was a
constant buzz of activity and TUUAP
activists formed the backbone of the
Waterford Glass Strike Support Group. Trade
union meetings, Trades Council meetings,
etc. were all leafletted looking for support
for the campaign. Press releases and
letters to the papers were issued weekly
(sometimes even two or three a week) &
several press conferences were held. While
the media were not very generous in their
coverage, the campaign did make the front
page of the national dailies on more than
one occasion. In the three week period of
the vote on PESP, this activity reached its
peak and over 40 people distributed
approximately 50,000 leaflets in the Dublin
area alone. There was therefore a consistent
level of activity and a sense that the
campaign was a real and genuine attempt to
challenge the concept of 'social
partnership'.
Less Glorious
The history of TUUAP in the post-PESP period
is, however, somewhat less glorious. The
Conference held on 25th May 1991 attracted
an attendance of less than 60 with just 9
people from outside Dublin. This conference
debated 19 motions - all of which envisaged
the campaign continuing on in some form.
Among the objectives which these motions set
out for a supposedly renewed TUUAP were to
"...campaign against the [Industrial
Relations] Act..." (Motion A)
"...constitute ...as an ongoing campaign..."
(Motion B)
"...maintain and develop the network of shop
stewards and trade union activists built up
around TUUAP..." (Motion C)
"...intervene in all workers' struggles,
initiating support groups for strikes,
raising financial support and
solidarity..."(Motion F)
"...raise in...public sector unions the need
for action to defend the C&A scheme" (Motion
I)
"...renew the struggle...to force a change
in the policy of ICTU, as expressed through
the PNR and the PESP, to the public
sector..."(Motion J)
"...produce a regular newspaper/bulletin..."
(Motion L)
"...provide practical and organisational
support to strikes as they occur..." (Motion
P)
...stand/support candidates for
Branch/Regional/National Executive
Committees..." (Motion Q)
The reality however was somewhat different.
Having begun life as a single-issue
campaign, much of the energy around TUUAP
was already dissipated by the time of the
conference. The core group of activists had
dwindled to less than ten and nothing that
was said at the conference indicated that
this core group was likely to increase in
size.
In fact in the post-conference scenario, the
number of activists dwindled even further
and nothing more than the rather irregular
production of a newsletter was possible. In
early 1992, it was decided to attempt to
expand this newsletter to a more regular
tabloid-size publication. However after
just two issues (April/May 1992 and Autumn
1992) this had to be abandoned due to a lack
of resources and personnel. While the
response to "Trade Union Fighttback " (as
the paper was titled) was generally
positive, the number of people willing to
take out subscriptions, take copies for sale
or indeed write articles for publication was
disappointingly small and meant that the
venture was unsustainable.
Poor response
As PESP began to approach the end of its
life, several attempts were made to
reconstitute TUUAP as a campaigning group
with some real base. The name was changed
to "Trade Union Fightback" (TUF) at a
'national' meeting held on 22nd May 1993.
It was an indication of what was to come
that this meeting had an attendance of less
than 30 people - with just one from outside
Dublin. Despite several mailouts to almost
300 contacts in the months between May 1993
and February 1994, the response was almost
non-existent. Dublin meetings - even during
the vote on PESP's successor, the Programme
for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) - had
less than ten regular attenders. In the
rest of the country there was only one
formal meeting - in Portlaoise where the
initiative came from an unemployed TUF
supporter. In the end, the campaign
amounted to just 5,000 leaflets, most of
which were posted to contacts in the hope
that they would be distributed.
It is difficult to explain exactly why a
campaign which had put up one hell of a
fight in 1990/1991 was hardly able to raise
even a whimper of protest in late 1993. I
think, however, that the writing was on the
wall since the conference of May 1991. In
hindsight we can see that the attendance at
that conference (or rather those who did not
attend) was evidence of a huge
demoralisation following the ballot. To a
certain extent TUUAP had become a victim of
its own success. A campaign which had begun
as an attempt to maximise the 'No' vote had
drawn in such a layer of supporters that
some people began to feel that we could
actually deliver a rejection of the PESP.
When we failed to achieve the result,
demoralisation set in. If at that
conference in May '91, we had taken stock of
the situation, and taken this into account,
perhaps we would have adopted a more
realistic set of motions.
The subsuquent period of time (i.e. 1991,
'92, '93) saw an even greater fall-off in
general trade union and political activity
than had been the case in the previous
number of years. Disillusionment with trade
unions was more the rule than the exception
and TUUAP/TUF's attempts to keep going as a
focus for anti-'social partnership' activity
fell onto the shoulders of just three or
four activists. As the PCW approached,
Militant Labour decided to focus its
energies on the newly-established Militant
Labour Trade Union Group, the Socialist
Workers Movement made no attempt to involve
themselves in the campaign and again it was
left to a handful of activists to attempt to
launch a 'national' campaign. It simply
proved unsustainable and, following a
disastrous campaign, the few people who had
attempted to keep the initiative alive were
left with no option but to formally wind up
TUF - at least for the time being.
Untapped Potential?
In attempting to analyse the level of
success or failure which TUUAP/TUF achieved,
it is important to start from a position of
realising exactly what the initiative
represented. Was it laden with untapped
potential? With a more 'correct' programme
could TUUAP/TUF have become the genesis of a
mass rank-and-file movement? Or did it
simply tap into an anti-'social partnership'
feeling among a layer of activists and
provide a forum through which their activity
could be co-ordinated?
As already mentioned, TUUAP was established
as a single-issue campaign. It had one
objective - to defeat the ICTU's planned
successor to the PNR (or at least to
maximise the vote against). In a document
circulated to TUUAP activists in the lead-up
to the Conference of 25th May 1991, Des
Derwin (TUUAP Chairperson) stated
"It need not have been a shop stewards
campaign. It was never explicitly so and
the level of participation indicates that it
was hardly a spontaneous initiative from the
shop stewards of Ireland! The aim was to
defeat or at least oppose the Programme and
it could have been an organisation of
concerned individuals like most single-issue
campaigns. And, let's face it, as regards
its core and activities it was like that,
with little participation from the shop
stewards on the ground and, of course, no
structural participation from union
committees etc."(1)
Further on, he continued
"At base TUUAP committed many stewards and
union activists to opposing the Programmes
and to a modestly comprehensive 'fightback'
alternative programme. For many this was
their first embracing of alternative ideas
for the labour movement and they may not
even be aware of the many other practical
and comprehensive proposals for change and
advance."(2)
So TUUAP achieved the endorsement of a
relatively broad layer of trade union
activists united on the specific issue of
fighting PNR/PESP. It never attempted to
present a radical alternative strategy for
democracy and change in the trade union
movement. While the 300 or so sponsors of
the campaign were united in their criticism
of the state of the movement and the
direction in which trade union leaders were
taking it, there was not necessarily
agreement on all the tactics and strategies
which would be needed to reclaim the
movement.
Indeed, there was always a considerable gap
betwen the level of formal support (as
expressed by endorsement of the TUUAP
statement) and the level of active support.
As Des Derwin put it:
"While TUUAP could present itself now and
again as an alliance of shop stewards (the
Dublin press conferences, the National
Conference, the founding meetings of the
main groups, its literature), these were
exceptional occasions, requiring great
organising efforts (and even then only a
small minority of the signatories were
involved) and the active nuclei in the
groups were very small and did not retain
the participation of many 'ordinary decent'
stewards and reps."(3)
Nevertheless the campaign could justifiably
claim to be the biggest and most
representative gathering of shop stewards
and activists since the national federation
of shop stewards and rank and file
committees of the 1970's. As already
mentioned, fortnightly meetings in Dublin in
the months leading up to the PESP ballot
were very well attended (20-30 attended
regularly). Many groups outside the capital
produced and distributed local leaflets.
The distribution of almost 100,000 leaflets
in the 3 weeks immediately before the ballot
indicated a high level of activism - albeit
for a limited period.
Following the ballot however the unifying
factor of campaigning for a No vote was
gone. Having provided a co-ordinating
structure for trade unionists who wished to
oppose the PESP, TUUAP now had to look to
the future and attempt to discover a way to
use what had been achieved as a base for
building a more long-term focus for
opposition to the rightward stampede of the
leadership.
Narrow Focus
While the majority consensus in TUUAP had
been that the campaign should - in the run
up to the ballot - confine itself to the
maximisation of the No vote, there had been
a school of thought - mainly represented by
Irish Workers Group (IWG) members active in
the campaign - that this focus was too
narrow. The IWG paper "Class Struggle"
argued
"...lodged within the singleness of purpose
with which TUUAP approaches its goal is a
fundamental contradiction. Insofar as it
limits itself to the single isue of getting
out the 'no' vote, the campaign has turned
its back on the vital need to build an
alternative to the Plan. This is a fatal
flaw - for when faced with a barrage of
propaganda coming from the union tops, many
workers who are thoroughly sickened by the
programme still see no real alternative to
it."(4)
IWG argued that TUUAP should aim to be more
than a 'vote no' campaign:
"Its branches and sectoral groups can and
must become the basis, not only for
mobilising a No vote, but for taking up
related issues. The key to this is to
develop beyond limited anti-PNR bulletins
and begin to organise rank and file
bulletins in each sector.....They must be
constituted as a permanent network of
militant activists that will remain in
existence long after the battle over the PNR
is fought, to co-ordinate a class-wide
response to the bosses' attacks."(5)
Looking back on the history of TUUAP after
the PESP ballot, this is still the question
for debate - would TUUAP have been any more
of a 'viable entity' in May 1991 if it had
twelve months previously set as one of its
main objectives the building of a rank-and-
file movement?
Rhetorical Gesture
There were very few TUUAP activists who were
- and are - not fully aware of the need for
a mass rank-and-file movement. If, however,
TUUAP had set the building of such a
movement as an immediate objective, it is
likely that differences would have arisen as
to the tactics, strategies and indeed
structures needed. In any event, to have
done so without first establishing a solid
base among shop stewards and union activists
would have been nothing more than a
rhetorical gesture.
A rank-and-file movement cannot be willed
into existence. It will not be the cause of
on-the-ground activity but will come about
as the result of such activity. TUUAP/TUF
was never - at any stage of its existence -
in a position to declare itself a shop
stewards/rank-and-file movement:
"Although it may wish to adopt the aim of
establishing a shop stewards movement, the
proportion nationally of shop stewards
involved in TUUAP, the input from workplaces
(as opposed to individual activists) and
committes, the level of participation beyond
formal support, and the breadth of the basis
of that support (opposition to the
Programmes) are all insufficient to describe
TUUAP or its immediate successor as a shop
stewards movement...it would be a shell
without any real substance."(6)
A genuine rank-and-file movement will only
be built as a result of both experience of
struggle and clearly worked-out ideas of
what can be done within the unions. There
is no evidence to suggest that had TUUAP
from its outset set the building of such a
movement as one of its main aims, it would
have been one iota closer to the achievement
of that aim by the time voting on the PESP
had finished.
Low ebb
Industrial and political struggle in the
1990-'91 period - and since - was at a low
ebb. Workers' confidence is low and most
industrial struggle which is taking place is
of a defensive rather than an offensive
nature. All trade union activists are aware
of the growing sense of apathy and
disillusionment and the fact that trade
union consciousness can no longer be taken
for granted. Attendance at union meetings
is extremely low and even Phil Flynn (IMPACT
general secretary and current President of
ICTU) complained of the low level of
participation in the ballot on the PCW. (7)
For a whole layer of workers - both young
and not so young - 'the union' is something
abstract and this sense of alienation is
deepened by the "New Realism" and "social
partnership" of the leadership.
In a feature in "Industrial Relations News"
(IRN) in early 1993, Norman Croke (SIPTU
official and recent candidate for the vice-
presidency of that union) admitted that
centralised bargaining is eroding trade
union democracy
"When negotiations take place in camera
through the aegis of the Social Partners,
active trade union membership participation
is severely curtailed. Trade union members
and lay officials are relegated to the
position of passive observer within their
own organisation and workplace." (8)
Croke noted that in a study of membership
participation carried out in the Irish
Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU)
- forerunner to SIPTU - during a period of
decentralised wage bargaining and reported
in IRN 24/1989, 81% of trade union members
studied had participated in votes on wage
deals. However, the result of SIPTU's
ballot on the PESP showed that out of a
claimed membership at the time (1991) of
208,000 (he admits that the actual book
membership was only approximately 180,000),
only 90,805 members voted. In other words,
only 50.5% of members cast a vote, showing
that 30% more trade union members voted when
the wage deal was negotiated locally through
free collective bargaining. More recently,
this conclusion has been reinforced by the
vote on the PCW. Of SIPTU's claimed 1993
membership of 197,500, only 91,419 (46.3%)
participated in the ballot. (It is
interesting to note here that only 61,173
SIPTU members - 31% of the total membership
- actually voted in favour of the PCW).
Croke himself carried out a study of the
opinions of a sample of 91 lay activist and
rank-and-file members within SIPTU - a study
whose findings reiterated the fact that
centralised bargaining has increasingly
isolated ordinary trade unionists from the
decision making process. Among the comments
made by Croke in the course of his IRN
article are
"...rank-and-file participation at the
central decision making forums is all but
non-existent..."
"...trade union activists and members have a
preference for decentralised bargaining and
prefer such bargaining to be undertaken by
their elected shop stewards and local full-
time Branch officials."
"...the developing consensus or Social
Partnership approach to industrial relations
within the trade union movement is confined
principally to the leadership..."
"The implications for the trade union
leadership and movement in containing lay
and rank-and-file activists in a passive
role...carries with it the danger that the
leadership and the movement may become less
relevant to its members."(9)
While we do not need Norman Croke or anybody
else to tell us that 'social partnership' is
anti-democratic, it is interesting to note
that even among the bureaucrats there is a
realisation that it is not safe for them to
be too open about their duplicity. And
while the bureaucracy will remain happy
enough with a quiet, disillusioned
membership (as long as that membership
continues to fund their huge salaries and
high-flying lifestyles), our challenge is to
turn the apathy into anger and a demand for
change.
What's to be done?
The question for trade union activists is
not whether rank-and-file activity is a good
thing but how such activity can be motivated
- in other words, what are the aims,
structures and strategies needed to combat
the apathy and, in periods of low activity
such as we are currently experiencing, where
should our energies be directed? With over
55% of all Irish employees unionised, there
is a great potential power in the trade
union movement. The tapping of that
potential poses a challenge for all those
interested in building a free and democratic
society. It is important that in discussing
what can be achieved, we realistically
assess the current position and avoid
trotting out ritualistic slogans.
On the organised left, the main strategies
put forward for trade union work could be
summarised as 1.Building Broad Lefts, 2.
Rank-and-filism 3.Building a Solidarity
Network (Laying the groundwork) . It is
crucial that we understand what each
involves.
1. The Broad Left Strategy
The principal objective of the Broad Left
Strategy is to elect a more 'radical' or
'left-wing' leadership. Those who advocate
a Broad Left Strategy do of course usually
argue for officials to be electable and re-
callable and for them to be paid at the
average wage of the members they represent.
The fundamental flaw in this strategy is
however that it is presumed that by electing
a new leadership the unions can be changed
from the top down.
This strategy does not however address the
basic problem. Just as society cannot be
improved fundamentally by electing a 'left-
wing' government, neither can the trade
union movement be reformed in this way.
Pursuit of the Broad Left Strategy means
that the election of leaders becomes more
important than fighting for changes in the
very rules and structures of the movement
which would allow for more democratic
participation.
Just as Anarchists believe that workers do
not need leaders to organise our society, so
we contend that the potential power of the
trade union movement is stymied by the
current divisions between leaders and led.
Real decision making is concentrated in the
hands of a very small number of people.
This situation has been compounded by the
amalgamations and 'rationalisation of
structures' which have occured over the past
number of years.
Within the current structures, a trade union
official's role is that of arbitrator,
conciliator and fixer. In order to fulfil
this role, an official must have control of
his/her members. If an employer cannot be
sure that the official can deliver workers'
compliance with a deal, why would that
employer bother with negotiations at all?
It is because of this that officials are so
quick to condemn 'unofficial' action (i.e.
action which hasn't been given their
approval) and this is also the reason why
the average official does not encourage a
high level of debate and activity among the
rank-and-file.
No matter how 'radical' the official might
personally be, the structures of the
movement dictate that he/she is not in a
position to encourage members to fight for
their demands. The Broad Left Strategy -
while usually padded out by calls for a
'fighting leadership' (whatever that is!)
and for internal democracy and
accountability - is essentially aimed at the
election of a new leadership who will
supposedly bring about change from the top.
It fails to address the crunch issue - it is
not the individual leaders who are the real
problem, rather it is the structures which
give them all-encompassing power.
2.Rank-and-Filism
This strategy involves fighting within the
trade unions for more democracy, more
struggle and more involvement by 'ordinary'
members. It is a strategy with which
Anarchists would be in full agreement. As
already mentioned, however, a rank-and-file
movement cannot be willed into existence.
Constant repititious calls for the building
of a rank-and-file movement do little or
nothing to bring about such a movement.
Where such groupings have existed in the
past they have come about as a result of
groups of workers coming to the realisation
that the union bureaucracy is an obstacle to
them in their struggle. In circumstances
where they are denied sanction for strikes
or find themselves being dragged into
endless rounds of mediation, conciliation,
Labour Court hearings, Labour Relations
Commissions etc., workers often come to the
conclusion that it is necessary to bypass
the union officials in order to fight. It
is when workers are in conflict with bosses,
when their confidence in the bureaucracy has
been eroded and when they themselves are
confident enough to take up the fight that
they realise the need for independent
organisation within the unions. The point
is that - as I mentioned earlier- rank-and-
file movements come about as a result of
workers' confidence and experience of
struggle - not the other way round. At a
time of low struggle and confidence, any
attempt to build such a movement will
attract only a very small number of
activists. That is not to say that such
attempts (where they arise from a genuine
anti-bureaucratic feeling) are wrong, just
to counsel against unrealistic goals.
3.The Solidarity Network
Nothing is to be gained by constantly
putting out calls for the ideal- a genuine
mass rank-and-file movement which would take
the power away from the bureaucrats. Indeed
the constant issuing of such calls can often
provide cover for those who do not wish to
make a realistic assessment of the current
position and apply themselves to what can be
done in the here and now.
In a climate of widespread
disillusionment/demoralisation, TUUAP/TUF's
great strength was that it provided a forum
for an admittedly small layer of activists
to come together on a limited platform. It
aimed - and to some extent at least
succeeded - to break down the isolation felt
by the most militant activists. It provided
a network for efforts to be pooled against
the concept of 'social partnership'. I
believe that the correct decision was made
at the outset when TUUAP confined itself to
the maximisation of the 'No' vote on PESP
II. This did not mean that all the other
issues which confront the trade union
movement were ignored. It meant instead
that these issues could be discussed in an
open non-sectarian manner.
In periods of low struggle such as that
which we are currently experiencing, it is
important that trade unionists take stock of
the possibilities for action, that we
address and debate issues such as:- What is
the best way to organise the reclamation of
the trade union movement by rank-and-file
activists? What tactics should be employed
when an upturn in struggle does come? It is
also important for socialists within the
trade unions to continue to provide support
for those struggles which do occur. (In fact
such support is even more necessary in
periods of low struggle in that those trade
union battles which do take place are
invariably of a defensive nature). Now is
the time for those of us who wish to see
wholesale change in the trade unions and
their structures to be laying the
groundwork, to be identifying key
acticivists and discussing issues with them,
to be building contacts within various
sectors and various unions. This is work
which can often be slow, tedious and
unglamorous but it is work which is crucial
if we are ever to take realistic steps along
the road to building the oft-demanded 'mass
rank-and-file movement'. This is what we
mean when we talk about building a
Solidarity Network, what is involved in
reality is the laying of the foundation
stones for our greater ambitions.
While TUUAP/TUF has now been formally laid
to rest, such initiaives will inevitably
arise again. Whether as strike support
groups , action groups within individual
unions or more long-term pro-democracy,
anti-bureaucracy campaigns, workers will
always be coming together and discussing the
issues which confront us. Anarchists will
be to the forefront of these discussions -
not as self-appointed leaders but as a
'leadership of ideas' - arguing for change
and working to bring about that change.
References
1. Derwin, Des: "Some thoughts on the future
of TUUAP", May 1991. Page 2
2. ibid. Page 2
3. ibid. Page 3
4. "Class Struggle" No.22 November/December
1990. Page 2 "TUUAP Challenge"
5. ibid.
6. Derwin, Des op. cit.
7. Reported in "Irish Times", Monday 21st
March 1994.
8. Croke, Norman: "Trade Union Membership
Participation in Centralised Bargaining"
in Industrial Relations News No.2, 14th
January 1993. Page 17.
9. Croke, Norman op. cit. Pp. 18-21