đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș solidarity-federation-queer-among-equals.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:59:54. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Queer among equals? Author: Solidarity Federation Date: Autumn 1998 Language: en Topics: Queer, gay liberation, Direct Action Magazine Source: Retrieved on June 20, 2005 from https://web.archive.org/web/20050620082329/http://www.directa.force9.co.uk/archive/da8-features.htm Notes: Published in Direct Action #8 â Autumn 1998.
While the establishment is ever intent on fanning the flames of social
stigma, people seek real and effective ways of fighting back.
There has been a frenzy on lesbian and gay law reform lately. In fact,
ever since President-elect Blair spoke in favour of 16 in the Age of
Consent debate in 1994, murmurings about equal opportunities have
continued. Meanwhile, in the real world, anti-discrimination is a
pressing issue both in and outside the workplace.
Being queer, I feel strongly about the need for anti-discrimination
measures. However, as an anarcho-syndicalist, I am opposed to the
structures within which such measures would be applied. This is not
purism â Iâve actually been involved in challenging an act of
discrimination through these very structures. Experience tells me it
wonât deliver.
Many businesses and service providers boast of being Equal Opportunity
Employers. Lisa Grantâs case against South-West Trains has shown such
boasts both to be hollow when it comes to costing money or challenging
management diktat, and to be legally worthless. After three and a half
years fighting to get her employer to include her partner Jill Percey in
spousesâ company benefits, the case was finally lost in June. The High
Court rejected her appeal against a ruling that she can not sue her
employer for breach of contract over failing to comply with its own
Equal Opportunities Policy.
Even if an Equal Opportunities Policy was a legally-enforceable part of
a contract of employment, that would guarantee nothing. Such
organisations have become expert in disguising discrimination, focusing
on the means of victimisation, not the context which reveals its
discriminatory character. Human Resources Consultants (personnel
advisers to you) specialise in advising managers how to deal with those
of us picked out for victimisation without giving legal grounds for
discrimination suits.
This already happens in race, sex and disability discrimination cases
where there is legal âprotectionâ. Similar measures would be used to get
round any Sexual Orientation Discrimination legislation, should it
manage to overcome the âfamily-orientedâ (read âright wingâ) Christians
who dominate the government. The heart of the problem lies in facing the
boss, or the law, as an individual case. This happens both in law and in
workplace Grievance Procedures.
If you are lucky enough to work where there is still a functioning
recognised trade union, you are likely to get sucked into the latter.
Once again, the focus is on technicalities, not realities. Legal
implications are paramount because Grievance Procedures are there to
avoid potentially embarrassing and costly compensation cases. In an
atmosphere where workplace organisation, let alone industrial action, is
seen as ultra-left posturing, the role trade unions are claiming for
themselves as âsocial partnersâ is as the safety net for the bosses.
Without a trade union representative pursuing a point, complacency is
likely to set in. Image conscious bosses, such as Local Authorities,
value the role conventional unions play in identifying the cracks in
their image before anyone else notices. The latter also serve to channel
collective anger and expressions of solidarity with a workmate
discriminated against or harassed into a forum where the damage can be
limited, the details made confidential, and the individual isolated from
the support which forced the bosses to address the issue.
Trade unions did not deliberately seek out this role. They have,
however, consciously adopted it in order to find a role which will
justify membership. Their over-riding financial priorities â pension
funds, banks, investments, etc. â made the Toriesâ anti-union laws,
supported by a Labour Party which has undergone its own parallel change
of role, effective. The sequestration of funds due to supporting, or not
suppressing, effective industrial action, would pose a real threat to
the corporate survival of the existing unions.
The attacks on unions which culminated in the defeat of the miners in
1984â85, and of the print unions a year later, destroyed the credibility
of industrial action as a means of defending jobs, pay and conditions.
In Local Government, where much of the impetus for Equal Opportunities
had been built up, this was followed up by the destruction of âmunicipal
socialismâ through Rate Capping and the Poll Tax. The Labour Party
shifted rightwards under this onslaught â Blair did not fall from the
sky.
Contrary to popular myths, anarcho-syndicalism is not simply trade
unionism by anarchists, subject to the same critique as the conventional
unions. Anarcho-syndicalism is itself a critique of the existing unions,
both theoretically and, where we are organised in the workplace, in
practice. Since our organised presence in recent times has been almost
exclusively within the European Union, that critique has been focused on
opposition to participation in Works Councils and other union elections.
Solidarity Federation, however, has its origins in a critique of the
existing unionsâ approach to industrial relations in Britain, based on
our own experiences. We refer to this system as âsocial democracyâ. It
is based on the idea of the employerâs and employeesâ representatives
sitting together on Joint Committees to resolve disputes without resort
to industrial action. This used to be called Corporatism, a system
borrowed from (Italian) fascism, and based on the idea that the state
was a third partner, an honest broker.
Nowadays, overt state intervention is not on the agenda, even for social
democrats. Hence âSocial Partnershipâ -a new name for New Britain. The
stateâs role is restricted to providing a legal framework which forces
the unions to seek âpartnershipâ with the bosses, who are under no real
pressure to play ball, and are consequently less enthusiastic about the
idea.
Anarcho-syndicalism starts from the basic premise that the exploitation
and oppression of working people is fundamental to the functioning of
capitalism. Social democracy is also opposed to exploitation and
oppression, but not to capitalism, believing that capitalism is the
goose that lays the golden egg.
Rather than kill the goose, social democrats believe that exploitation
and oppression can be minimised by regulation, and seek the role of
regulators. While many of them would love to be more militant, and
understand the usefulness of industrial action, they are committed to
playing by whatever rules are laid down for them. Debates among social
democrats are about the rules, not the game.
For anarcho-syndicalists, the goal of getting rid of capitalism in order
to end our exploitation and oppression determines our approach to
âindustrial relationsâ. We are forced to play the game, but we must work
to change it, not just the rules. A fully-fledged anarcho-syndicalist
union with a mass membership and an organised workplace presence would
be playing a different game, and boycotting Joint Committees and
individually-based Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. Its very
existence must challenge the legitimacy of the boss and seek to
undermine capitalist social relations.
The individual or small group of anarcho-syndicalists has the task both
of playing the game and of trying to change it, not just the rules. The
way to change the game is to play it on terrain favourable to the
workers, rather than on the existing field determined with agreement
from the bosses. That field favours those discriminating against you.
The only way to drag the fight onto terrain favourable to us is through
collective action.
Real direct action, as opposed to protests, is about forcing the police,
the government or the boss to concede your demands without getting
sucked into individual cases. The latter involve discarding the initial
anger at injustice and enthusiasm for fighting it, and dragging out a
process which stifles or limits the scope for gains. It also supports
the armies of lawyers, trade union officials and politicians who make a
living from mediating conflict.
Not that direct action is 100% effective in all cases, but not only is
it more likely to get results, it will bring wider benefits. The
advantage, or catch, for those of us confronting heterosexism is that it
requires people to be open about who they are and what they are fighting
for to get their workmates, neighbours and friends to fight alongside
them. Tricky if youâre not confident of their support and commitment â
although often itâs your only real option. And even if youâre not
successful, you may gain a greater measure of acceptance from the fight.
Winning in individual cases will only bring a grudging tolerance with no
relevance to the people you live and work with. Direct action forces
people to confront the issues and to overcome their own fears and
prejudices, because they have no-one to leave âthe politicsâ to.
Fighting for something together heightens both confidence and political
consciousness.
For those who believe that âstraightsâ cannot be trusted, here are a
couple of examples which have shaped my perspective. First of all, was
it Hackney
Councilâs status as an âEqual Opportunity Employerâ which saved lesbian
Headteacher Jane Brown from Education Director Gus Johnâs high profile
campaign to sack her? Or was it the support for her from parents and
governors at her school? Jane Brownâs crime was not being a lesbian as
such, but challenging the educational value of a play âexclusively about
heterosexual loveâ. This is officially regarded as putting your
âpersonal interestsâ before those of the children in your charge.
Similarly, a gay man got sacked from a school for failing to disclose a
Caution (not a conviction, mind) for Gross Indecency. He wasnât sacked
for being gay, but for failure to disclose the âconvictionâ. If he
wasnât gay he wouldnât have been jumped by five coppers while snogging
in a park in the first place. To sack him for failure to disclose the
Caution is not discriminatory, oh no â this is an Equal Opportunity
Employer, it doesnât discriminate. His workmates were furious, not being
Equal Opportunity Employers, merely workers, they foolishly saw this not
only as a failure to âactively combat direct and indirect
discriminationâ, but as discriminatory and an act of victimisation of a
gay man for having a sex life. (âWe love the sinner, but hate the sinâ,
remember.)
Meanwhile, back in the field of industrial relations, everything hinges
on a technicality â was the word âCautionâ mentioned anywhere in the
recruitment literature. The issue of whether someone whom the police
only caution is a sex criminal and a potential threat to young people in
his care doesnât even arise if Human Resources can find a reference to
cautions somewhere, anywhere. An Equal Opportunity Employer is not
interested in its managersâ equation of gay men with child molesters â
institutionalised discrimination cannot exist.
The workforce at the school were threatened with âbringing the Council
into disreputeâ (by exposing its hypocrisy and discrimination) for
discussing the sacking amongst themselves. The Councilâs cover-up of its
discriminatory practice has not been challenged, and a reference to
âcautionsâ was duly found.
One of the reasons reinstatement was always unlikely is that the
individual concerned was on probation, and had not got around to joining
a union when his contract was swiftly terminated. Not only did this mean
he could be disposed of more easily, it meant that his workmates support
for him would be effectively disowned by the unions to which they are
affiliated.
Never mind that loads of gay men who risk a similar fate are their
members and that the best way to protect them was to win reinstatement.
The corporate interests of the union take priority, membership (and
subs. income) must be maximised, solidarity counts for nothing.
Anarcho-syndicalists are the opposite â for us solidarity is not a
commodity to be provided on subscription, it is what links us to our
fellow human beings.
Unfortunately, the institutions of the Lesbian & Gay Community have a
similar business/service logic to the conventional unions. Even before
Freedom UK âoutedâ Pride as a business, it was totally dependent on
sponsorship, mainly from purveyors of legal drugs. The rest of the
Scene, and the press which serves it, are about finding our niche in
capitalist society. Stonewall is a self-appointed, straight-acting,
middle class civil rights body, Outrage is a more militant version of
the same. To me, the problem has always been that I am subject to
authority â if no-one can decide my face doesnât fit, I donât have any
problems!