💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000391.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:28:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Workers Solidarity No. 42
Irish Anarchist Paper
Net addition
PCW
Singnificant minority say NO to union leaders
AS EXPECTED the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Special
Conference voted to accept the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work, by 256 to 76. Unions opposed
included the ATGWU, TEEU, MSF, NUJ and the FUGE which
represents low paid messengers and cleaners in the
civil service.
The vote in favour is a setback for militant trade
unionism. The PCW is about pay restraint, job losses
and promotion of a fictitious 'partnership' between
workers, bosses and government. It is a continuation of
the PNR and PESP which hammered the low paid,
unemployed and growing numbers of poor.
A campaign against the deal was mounted by Trade
Union Fightback, an alliance of rank & file shop
stewards and activists. Sadly the current level of
demoralisation among union members meant that their
campaign was a pale shadow of the one waged against the
PESP in 1991. TUF has since disbanded. However if there
was a drop in the numbers campaigning there was no
noticeable drop in the numbers opposed to such deals.
Within the largest union, SIPTU, 29,308 (32%) voted
against in a turnout of about 50%. In most jobs where
even one individual made the arguments for a 'no' vote
they were usually successful in winning over the
majority. This was done in a situation where the union
literature carried only pro-PCW propaganda. In the best
tradition of SIPTU style 'democracy' the Branch
Secretaries were prohibited by head office from sending
out circulars to members notifying them when Branch
Committees decided to recommend against but the
National Executive was allowed to put their
recommendation actually on the ballot paper!
In Trinity College the shop stewards, representing
440 manual & clerical staff, countered the Executive by
affixing their own "10 reasons to vote no" to each
ballot paper. Here the vote against was 5.6:1. Similar
tactics were used in several CPSU branches.
We have to face the fact that mass unemployment,
mounting poverty and over two decades of centralised
wage bargaining have left many good union activists
demoralised. They are doubtful about the possibility of
fighting back against the bosses and bureaucrats. The
vote on the PCW hasn't helped.
Rather than get depressed at the failure of TUF we
should be aware that large rank & file groupings are
created when workers are fighting the bosses, are
confident, and then find the union officials are trying
to sabotage their struggle. The need for independent
organisation within the union is then posed. Struggle
creates genuine rank & file movements, not the other
around.
At a time when workers are on the defensive and
lacking in confidence any attempt to create such groups
will attract only small numbers of activists. This is
not to decry such attempts (where they arise from a
genuine desire to take on the officials) but to warn
against any unrealistic goals at this stage.
However all is not bad news. There are activists who
want to fight back. Lately we have seen the COLT
campaign to get the unions to fight C45s in the
construction industry, the anger at threatened pay cuts
and redundancies in Irish Rail and the marathon strike
at Nolan Transport for union recognition. The struggle
is far from over.
Don't vote...it only encourages them
THERE ARE so many parachutes in the sky we can no
longer see the sun. They are dropping 'personalities'
into the June Euro-election. All the major parties in
the 26 counties have selected 'names' to run for them.
Fianna Fail got Olive Braiden from the Rape Crisis
Centre; Labour got RTE's Orla Guerin; Fine Gael got the
Ranchers' leader, Alan Gillis.
None had been members of these parties until literally
days before their selection. Olive Braiden had
previously been out canvassing for Mary Robinson (an
ex-member of Labour) and Frances Fitzgerald of Fine
Gael. Now she is going for the hat trick with Albert's
gang. Orla Guerin has had no known involvement in party
politics. Alan Gillis was too busy pleading for rich
farmers to be given yet more EC money to find time to
join a party.
Yet they all ended up as party candidates. The only
reason they were asked to run was that they are well
known. Not because their politics are well known, not
because they even have any known political commitment -
but simply because their names are well known.
FORGET THE POLITICS... JUST GET THE IMAGE RIGHT
Braiden is supposed to give Fianna Fail a more
'liberal' image in Dublin [while they run Catholic
bigots like Eamonn O'Cuiv for a Galway Dail seat].
Lane's job is to hold on to the big farmer vote that
Fine Gael has enjoyed since the 1930's. And Guerin is
helping Labour to build a new image, the 'modern' party
that put Mary Robinson into the Phoenix Park.
Democratic Left didn't want to be left out either.
They are running Pat 'triple mandate' Rabbitte because
their opinion polls suggested he would get a higher
vote than sitting MEP Des Geraghty. With all of them it
is a case of personality being a damn sight more
important than policies.
All of this shows the contempt that the parties
treat the voters with. There will be little time given
over to discussing manifestoes or policies. There will
be a lot of time given over to what are no more than
personality contests. Maybe the Workers Party should
try to recapture a few of their old votes by standing
down Tomas McGiolla and getting Bono or Gay Byrne to
run instead. Or Sinn Fein could ask one of the Wolfe
Tones, and the Progressive Democrats could fly in Clint
Eastwood.
Anarchists are not taking part in this charade, we
are not be calling for a vote for anyone. Not this
time, not ever. It is because we are democrats that we
do not take part in parliamentary elections. Sounds
odd? The key question is what do we mean by democracy?
WHO HAS THE POWER?
The right to the vote was part of the hard won
struggles of workers (and suffragettes!) over the last
couple of hundred years. Obviously it is preferable to
live in a parliamentary democracy rather than a
dictatorship. Even the most flawed democracies are
forced to concede rights that dictatorships do not,
such as relative independence for trade unions, the
right to limited demonstrations, a certain amount of
free speech, etc.
However the real purpose of parliament is not to
ensure the country is run according to the wishes of
all the people, cherishing all their views equally.
Parliament instead provides a democratic facade beyond
which the real business of managing capitalism goes on.
A seemingly endless series of business scandals,
from BCCI to Goodman, gives us some idea how the real
decisions are made in the boardrooms rather than the
debating chambers. In the unlikely event of a
government getting elected which goes "too far" in the
eyes of the bosses they are quick to use any means
necessary to remove it.
The best known example of this is perhaps the
removal of the democratically elected Allende
government in Chile in 1970. They had attempted to
bring in a limited package of reforms and nationalise
some of the larger American industries. The result was
a military coup backed by the CIA in 1973.
WHO WANTS A BOSS?
Anarchists do not believe the sort of change we want
can come about through the good actions of a few
individuals. We have always argued that the liberation
of the working class can only be achieved through the
action of the working class.
This idea is obviously the complete opposite to the
parliamentary idea. We do not seek a few leaders, good,
bad or indifferent to sort out the mess that is
capitalism. Indeed we argue constantly against any
ideas that make it seem such elites are necessary.
Voting for rulers (whether you do so "critically" or
any other way) is supporting the idea that society
should be divided into rulers and ruled. We want to end
that division just as much as we want to end the
division into bosses and workers.
The alternative we support is anarchism, where
society is organised to benefit the many and not just
the profiteering few. It is an alternative where anyone
effected by a decision will be able to have a say in
making that decision. Power will come from the bottom
up. A system of workplace and community councils,
federated nationally and eventually internationally,
will ensure that this is done in an organised,
efficient and truly democratic way.
Alan MacSimoin
Letter
Dear Comrades,
One minute to midnight on Friday 15th April and the
rail strike is averted. SIPTU left it to the last
minute leaving the company sweating it out. The unions
never had problems with negotiations. The strike notice
was only served after the company suspended workers for
not accepting new training arrangements which they were
being forced to take or face being suspended. The
company had repeatedly refused to enter negotiations
because this productivity deal had been on the table
for three years.
The mass media could not hide from this one. It was
to be the first national rail strike in over 40 years.
But they hid the facts about the dispute and
concentrated on one single issue - claims that the
drivers earn up to #20,000 a year. A similar claim like
this was used against workers in the Waterford Glass
dispute. It attempted to portray the drivers as
privileged workers and thus divert public support from
their cause. They failed to mention the 70-80 hours
work per week or spending 4-5 hours on a train with no
toilet facilities often endured by the drivers.
If the productivity deal goes ahead drivers will be
asked to operate trains without guards, in other words
do two peoples' jobs. The guards will be re-deployed to
other depots and most likely do other jobs than their
own. Drivers could lose their mileage allowance which
they earn for long distance runs and also work a five
out of seven day week. Saturday and Sunday would become
ordinary days and overtime lost.
On Friday at lunch time the company organised,
against their will, 17 temporary Draftsmen and
Engineers to go down to Rosslare to be used to man the
port, tying up boats, erecting the gang plank, and
collecting tickets. None of the staff had been trained
to do these duties. The company were prepared to put
passengers safety at risk in order to maintain profits.
Fortunately this did not go ahead. In the short term
the workers have won and the company are on the run.
Watch this dispute closely. It may develop into massive
strike action.
TEEU member,
Iarnrod Eireann
>Since this letter was written there have, of course,
been further developments. For the moment the
leadership of SIPTU, which went over the heads of the
union's own Rail Council, managed to head off strike
action. No surprise that Attley, Browne & co. behaved
like agents of management! How far rail workers can be
pushed before they fight back is the question.
Prepare to Sink the service charges
THEY WANT us to pay twice! When domestic rates were
abolished the government increased PAYE and VAT to make
up the difference. Now they are putting the screws on
again. They tried it with the water rates but came up
against massive resistance. Tens of thousands refused
to pay. When peoples water was cut off local campaigns
and sympathetic plumbers turned it back on. In
Waterford a gang of contractors who were cutting off
non-payers were held hostage by residents and Waterford
Glass workers in the Fr Paddy Browne Road area. The
upshot was that a lot of people never paid a penny and
in Limerick, Waterford and Dublin the local authorites
had to abolish water rates.
Now the politicians have decided to have another go.
Each local authority has levied a service charge for
this year. The one exception is Dublin Corporation
which plans to do it next year. They can be stopped
just like happened to the Poll Tax in Britain. See page
10. look at how that tax was defeated.
The Poll Tax Rebellion by Danny Burns. AK Press. #4.95
(available from WSM Book Service)
IN THE LAST issue of Workers Solidarity we discussed
the proposed introduction of service charges in Dublin.
We pointed out how they were a grossly unfair form of
double taxation on ordinary PAYE workers. How can they
be resisted? A refusal to pay campaign in Waterford,
Dublin and Limerick beat the water rates in the 1980s
we believe a don't pay, don't collect campaign can do
so again. Conor Mc Loughlin examines a new book on how
the Poll Tax was beaten in the UK.
This book was completed by Danny Burns in January 1992.
He was secretary of the Avon federation of Anti-Poll
Tax Unions and co-ordinated the campaign in the South
West. He was also one of the three non-aligned (i.e.
non-party members) on the executive of the All Britain
Federation. The book is a history of the growth of the
non-payment campaign which involved thousands through
the Anti-Poll Tax Unions (APTUs).
It is a refreshing change from your typical history
book in that the events are seen mainly through the
eyes of the people directly involved. It is written as
a story beginning with the growth of local APTUs and
moving on to courthouse disruption, bailiff resistance
and leading to the Trafalgar Square riot and the
eventual defeat of the Poll Tax.
In total 17 million people in Britain did not pay their
Poll Tax. Some would argue that this was purely passive
and that most of the non-payment was "can't pay" rather
then "won't pay." This book clearly illustrates how
thousands, perhaps millions were very Actively involved
in the fight against the Poll Tax.
The tax was first greeted in Scotland then Britain by
the formation of local APTUs. By November 1989 there
were 1000. Most groups started small but many built up
memberships of 500 and more. This was a campaign which
drew in thousands who had never been involved in
politics before.
NEW TACTICS
This meant that new tactics and approaches were needed
to get people involved. For example in Easton in
Bristol the local union was built on a door to door
basis. Firstly a group of 5 or 6 friends got together
and organised a public meeting to see if there was any
interest at all. 50 people turned up and some joined.
The next stage was to drop a window poster into around
2000 households. Posters appeared in about 100 windows.
These were then approached directly and asked to join
the group. They then carried out a local survey. This
was not really a scientific poll more of a pretext to
sound out local feeling.
In the end the union had about 300 members. It
attempted to keep people in touch by having street reps
and a local news-letter. This was useful as it informed
people that they were not alone and that non-payers
were all around them. Using these tactics APTUs
succeeded in changing non-payment from a passive
individual act to an active collective one in many
cases.
MOTIVATION
They also recognised the vital role of confidence
building and political motivation. The first priority
was to convince people to fight. The second to convince
them that they could win. The aim in most APTUs was to
make all the members feel that they were an active and
important part of what was happening. Networks of kids
kept an eye out for bailiffs and sheriffs. Pensioners
and parents working at home organised telephone trees
and were ready to assemble at a moments notice to
defend houses from sheriffs and bailiffs.
In fact bailiff busting became a high art. So much so
that many debt collecting firms went bust. In Edinburgh
a group called scum busters were equiped with squads of
cars and CB radios. Several minicab companies in London
performed a similar service. Poindings (whereby a
sheriff can value and remove goods) were resisted by
crowds of hundreds in Scotland (they didn't have the
power to do it in Wales and England). Bailiffs' houses
were picketed and sheriffs offices occupied.
The movement was built from the grass roots up. It was
based closely on already existing community networks.
Capitalism has broken up many traditional communities
and created in their place vast estates. However in
some cases this has back-fired on them. For example in
Mayfield (sounding not totally unlike it's namesake in
Cork);
"Our area is mostly made up of housing schemes. There
isn't a big shopping area. It was a mining community
but then they closed down the pits so there's a high
unemployment rate in this area. The centre of Mayfield
is the labour club, everything goes on there. It's a
built up area there's not a lot of play for the kids.
There's a small community centre, nothing else around
here. But we pay high bus fares if we go in to town".
(Chris Mayers, Mayfield APTU)
Necessity had built up community links. People met in
shopping centres, outside schools, at laundries,
football matches etc. As APTUs worked on new links or
tapped into already existing one there were some
changes in perception. "The barriers of age, sex and
race began to crumble. Ali, the local Asian shopkeeper,
allowed us to stick a huge notice board in his shop
window. The local launderette took leaflets. Some
people became noticeably healthier. Mary Mc Innes, one
of the oldest members of the Prestonfield group, who
occasionally needed a ventilator to breathe, and at
first needed a lift to meetings, literally ran up the
street to be at Paul Smarts house before the sheriff
officers". (Bob Goupillot, Prestonfield Community
Resistance.)
Some on the left argued for non-collection of the tax
to be fought for within the unions. However NALGO (the
local government workers' union) which was won to a
non-payment policy refused to lift a finger to
implement it. Those union members who tried to organise
workplace campaigns met with hostility from the
leadership. The book devotes only a mere two pages in a
section on wage arrestment (to pay tax arrears) to the
idea of non-collection.
We believe that non-collection of service charges could
and should be fought for within IMPACT and the CPSU -
the unions concerned with collection in Ireland. If
workers can be won over to this idea then they are
making a very fundamental statement against the state's
right to collect a new tax. They are questioning who
runs society and in whose interests.
However given the present state of the unions, the low
level of activism on the ground (after years of
national wage deals) and the stranglehold of the
bureaucracy this won't be an easy battle. In fact the
current policy of both IMPACT and the CPSU supports the
introduction of a head tax to improve local services
and increase employment. They have bought in totally to
the "partnership" myth.
In 1986/1987 there was a major debate within the LGPSU
(now a part of IMPACT ) about hospital charges. The
national conference voted for non- collection but the
executive found this unacceptable and held several
repeat votes until it swung in their favour. This shows
that a major union could be won to non-payment but any
measure which broke the law would face hostility and
non-co-operation from the bureaucracy.
THE WORKERS STRIKE BACK
The huge anti-Poll Tax demonstrations of 200,000 in
London and 50,000 in Glasgow was in many respects the
turning point in the Anti-Poll-Tax battle. The rioting
which broke out involved thousands in a spontaneous
outburst of class anger. 542 police officers were
wounded, thousands of demonstrators were injured as
police charged with horses and drove vans at
demonstrators.
The "Militant" dominated national executive of the All
British Federation of APTUs proved they were totally
out of touch with reality. Tommy Sherridan claimed that
those "embroiled in running battles had nothing to do
with our protest" (post-march press conference)
Steve Nally (on ITN April first) announced "we are
going to hold our own internal inquiry which will go
public and if necessary name names". However the first
opinion poll after the riots showed one third of people
felt the fightback against the police was justified.
Norman Tebbit (from his own class point of view) proved
more perceptive "if you tell people to break the law by
not paying the tax, you're not far off telling them to
break other laws as well". Within weeks of March 31st
the number of APTUs had trebled.
Overall a great read. I would only have one or two
minor quibbles. At one stage the point is made that the
strength of the APTUs was their tactical diversity
which is very true. However he continues that
firebombing Poll Tax offices could be included in this
list claiming "the activities of those who were not
prepared to break the law were not undermined by the
actions of the few who chose to throw firebombs."
This isn't exactly the point though. After all non-
payment was breaking the law. The problem with isolated
and "glamorous" pieces of action like petrol bombings
is that they are entirely individualistic. They tend to
alienate many involved in the boring hum-drum activism
that adds up to a popular fightback. Sometimes such
tactics may be justified in the face of all other
avenues of struggle being closed by the state. Here
though they served more as a distraction from the real
campaign.
Another problem is given the secrecy of this type of
action it could not be democratically planned and
agreed by most of the members of a particular APTU so
it is not fair to claim to "represent" anyone in these
actions.
This aside the book is a well written and highly
readable account of the struggle against the Poll Tax.
It enscribes the writing in large clear letters on the
wall for anyone wishing to fight our own "service
charges". The only way to defeat a community based
household tax is by mass community and workplace
resistance.
Find Out More
The world's wealth is produced by us - the working
class. We ought to enjoy the benefits.
The Workers Solidarity Movement is an anarchist
organisation that fights for a 32 county Workers'
Republic.
We stand for a socialism that is based on freedom
and real democracy, a society based on workplace and
community councils.
This kind of socialism has nothing to do with the
state capitalism that was practiced in Russia, and
still is in China, Cuba and other police states.
We oppose coercive authority, and hold that the only
limit on freedom of the individual should be that they
don't encroach on the freedom of others.