I think that was the Telegraph scaremongering, would be great if it was true though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/30/tradeunions.gordonbrown
Secondary picketing back under discussion
At the 2007 Labour Party Conference it was decided that unions could not submit political motions to the conference any more. They basically lost the little remaining political power they had within the party.
So now they are buying their way back into the party? Is that it? They are buying the workers a set of rights?
I dont want to underestimate the backwardness of working laws and the benefits changes to the law could bring to the social movement, but really i dont think its the best way to get there. It looks more strange than great to me.
Anyway im not sure who is using who here... Looks more like Labour is using the unions and members money to gain back some political ground.
Bureaucrats negotiating with bureaucrats. Is that really so great for the labour movement?
Unions would never try and get something that would decrease their influence or control over the workers, would they?
Just to make it clear - I think it's all talk, won't happen, and if it did happen would probably never be used.
from that Guardian article:
Tony Woodley wrote:
But Tony Woodley, joint general secretary of Unite, said: "We may have words to say about this government about individual disputes, but let us be clear about one thing: the Tories would be an absolute disaster for working men and women."
Gordon Brown wrote:
“no return to the 1970s, 80s, or even 90s when it comes to union rights”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fac8df3e-4bad-11dd-a490-000077b07658.html
The unions are fulfilling their role for the state. They know that they will need more room to manoeuvre against the working class, just as they know that if the present tendencies continue both withing the development of the economic crisis and the class struggle workers will be directly confronting them. They will need sharper weapons against the working class.
baboon, please explain how secondary picketing becoming legal would be a sharper weapon against the working class. Thanks.
I think it's more likely that there's lots of grumbling at the lower echelons of the union bureaucracies, so the leadership are trying to put a face on it to make themselves look some ways effective and militant - at the same time this gives Brown the opportunity to look 'tough on the unions' simply by saying no.
I think baboon's point about secondary picketing is that legalising it through the unions will enable them to control it and prevent it from having coming under the direct control of workers themselves.
This applies to strikes in general. If all strikes were made illegal then any that happened would instantly become highly politicised and result in a direct confrontation with the state. We see this in the peripheral countries where struggles immediately take on a violent, confrontational nature.
By making strikes legal, under the aegis of the unions, it allows a kind of safety valve, releasing the anger in controllable bursts. If the pressure in the cooker is building up, then like any good cook, the bourgeoisie will open the valve and relieve a little more. This is what a legalisation of secondary picketing would represent.
Having said that, I think catch is right that this isn't on the real agenda at the moment and I largely agree with his comments about the unions using it make themselves look more militant, with no intention to follow through at present. But the fact that it's being talked about at all shows there is something on the move.
Quote:
Gordon Brown wrote:
“no return to the 1970s, 80s, or even 90s when it comes to union rights”
I guess they didn't come up with a nice enough offer...
I know it was not going to happen, i was just questioning the principle of it. I find it weird that a union could buy rights to the working-class. I find it more disempowering than progressive.
But i guess its the whole relationship between the unions and Labour that amazes me.
Quote:
ft wrote:
Unions, which now provide about 90 per cent of Labour’s funding
Now dont get me wrong, if they were to be instrumental in introducing free school meals, id happily take the free food and run...
I agree with the rest of your comments Catch. Oh, and hi by the way. Long time no see. Hope you're well...
I fail to see Baboons point though.
Quote:
Demogorgon wrote:
I think baboon's point about secondary picketing is that legalising it through the unions will enable them to control it and prevent it from having coming under the direct control of workers themselves.
Fair enough but thats a separate issue to me. Secondary pickets would still be a good thing for the social movement and they wouldnt increase the control of the workers by the unions per se.
Solidarity strikes would bring the workers together and break the sector-based confinement they're in at the moment. It cant be a bad thing as such can it?
I'm all for strikes, secondary picketing and solidarity strikes. I'm against having them controlled by the unions which would be the aim behind any change in the legislation. Workers should go out and do these things anyway without waiting for permission from the state or its union appendages. As you yourself say: "I find it weird that a union could buy rights to the working-class. I find it more disempowering than progressive."
Quote:
I'm all for strikes, secondary picketing and solidarity strikes. I'm against having them controlled by the unions which would be the aim behind any change in the legislation. Workers should go out and do these things anyway without waiting for permission from the state or its union appendages.
That's all fine, except by your logic (and especially baboons) - the steam valve of legal strikes, legal trade unions etc. is a conspiracy by the ruling class to dupe workers into having their struggles controlled by the unions - not a concession granted in response to those working class struggles out of necessity. Since I don't think there's any necessity right now, I don't reckon there'll be a change in legislation - but surely if legal secondary picketing was such a useful ideological tool then there wouldn't be any need for this posturing? It's a view which goes completely against the evidence of the past 30 years - where anti-strike legislation has gone hand in hand with a demobilisation of the working class both inside and outside the union framework.
Not only that, but your position puts you into an almost illegalist/immiserationist view of the working class - that anti-union laws will somehow spark of wider struggles as they encourage head-on confrontations - if the government introduces legislation to make unions illegal, would this be a positive thing for the clas struggle? Trade unions being illegal tends to foster illusions about 'trade union rights' etc. in countries where that's the case. The same as it's easy for the big unions to blame being ineffective on legal restrictions against secondary picketing etc. In the same way that anti-union employers, especially in the US, manage to turn workplace issues into a struggle for representation rather than concrete demands. If anything, were this legislation to ever be introduced, it'd be a further indication of the bankruptcy of the unions, one less reform to fight for instead of concentrating on the real issues, rather than strengthening them.
Gordon Brown wrote:
“no return to the 1970s, 80s, or even 90s when it comes to union rights”
Jesus, this is the man who wrote the 'Red Paper on Scotland', who wanted 'workers' control of industry' and did his PhD on James Maxton and his radical socialism. It's the cliche of the student radical turned conservative wanker, but still...unbelievable. I wonder what his younger self would've said.
Volin wrote:
Gordon Brown wrote:
I wonder what his younger self would've said.
probably something along the lines of "keep up this wadical student politics posturing and sometime soon you'll be on your way up the Labour Party hierarchy and ready to jettison all this lefty crap."
That's all fine, except by your logic (and especially baboons) - the steam valve of legal strikes, legal trade unions etc. is a conspiracy by the ruling class to dupe workers into having their struggles controlled by the unions - not a concession granted in response to those working class struggles out of necessity. Since I don't think there's any necessity right now, I don't reckon there'll be a change in legislation - but surely if legal secondary picketing was such a useful ideological tool then there wouldn't be any need for this posturing? It's a view which goes completely against the evidence of the past 30 years - where anti-strike legislation has gone hand in hand with a demobilisation of the working class both inside and outside the union framework.
Catch: The question is why are the unions talking relaxing the laws on secondary action now? Is it not because there have been growng moves towards solidarity in a number of strike movements and the unions need to make sure that this continues to take place in a "proper trade union framework"? This response does not require any conspiracy. It's perfectly "natural" for the unions to want to keep control of class reactions in their hands, and no doubt the majority of trade unionists see this as a way of defending working class interests. Constantly throwing the term 'conspiracy' around is a way of avoiding the central issue: are the trade unions organs of the state or not?
Quote:
Constantly throwing the term 'conspiracy' around is a way of avoiding the central issue
Exactly, which is why using terms like 'sharper weapons against the working class' when talking about relaxation of strike legislation tends to discredit any real analysis of the role of the unions.
Exactly, which is why using terms like 'sharper weapons against the working class' when talking about relaxation of strike legislation tends to discredit any real analysis of the role of the unions.
But the unions are weapons against the working class and they have to constantly sharpen themselves to maintain control.
Alf wrote:
Exactly, which is why using terms like 'sharper weapons against the working class' when talking about relaxation of strike legislation tends to discredit any real analysis of the role of the unions.But the unions are weapons against the working class and they have to constantly sharpen themselves to maintain control.
Yeah we've seen alot of unions sharpening themselves over the last 30 years and all.
Isnt that a bit easy to say that because a union wants or because a government allows the laws to be relaxed, then it will necessarily be bad for the workers, and it will necessarily have the desired effect of containing the class struggle?
I mean unions and governments make mistakes, dont they?
Plus wouldnt that precisely imply some sort of conspiracy on their part..?
As much as governments are trying to avoid a direct confrontation with the working class and would rather resort to unions, you also have to consider the influence that class struggles have on the law and on any situation.
Its a question of balance of power as well.
Governments and unions could make a decision because they're in a situation where they have to, think its a good one and then realise it was a wrong decision anyway.
It happened many times through history.
Social history is not a one-way process but a dialectical one.
I understand unions would rather have control of solidarity strikes rather than have them directly managed by the workers. But i still tend to think it would be a good thing to have solidarity strikes rather than not.
Otherwise, you might as well argue for all strikes to be ruled illegal and for all laws to be tougher on the workers. And Im not sure it really holds up.
George, like Catch, avoids the fundamental question: are the unions organs and structures of the ruling class or not? I point you George to the role of the mining, steel, engineering, railway and electrical power unions in the 70s and 80s. Seconadary picketing was legal. When they talked about "solidarity" and "secondary action" the steam was already out of the struggle. The unions had it sown up and defeated.
What's important here is not the conspiracy theories of Catch, but the need of the class struggle faced with a developing economic crisis and an undefeated working class.
You're the one peddling conspiracy theories. Are you really claiming there's a need for unions to legalise secondary picketing in order to control all that illegal secondary picketing that's going on right now? Also, where's this undefeated working class you speak of?
Quote:
the fundamental question: are the unions organs and structures of the ruling class or not
Not as fundamental as you imagine because contradictory things can happen.
I don't think any is claiming that there is a need for this legislation to contain struggles at their current level. Quite the opposite. The rhetoric is there to reinforce the unions' image in the working class. All that has been said is that if the bourgeoisie did legalise secondary pickets it would be in order to contain the struggle and that the unions would be on the front lines in holding back the class.
The other thing that has been said is that workers shouldn't wait to ask permission from the ruling class, their unions and their state to show solidarity with other workers.
The bourgeoisie are readying its unions to deal with the rising class struggle and the potential that exists with the dramatic development of the economic crisis. The bourgeoisie exists, it has noticed the class struggle and the crisis and it organises. This is not a conspiracy but the world we live in. It's not that the unions that fund the LP but the state that funds the unions, and facilitates the funding of the trade unions. The unions are integral to the state and the bourgeoisie is sharpening its weapons just as it did with the unions in the 1970s and 80s when secondary picketing was legal and the state used its unions to crush the working class.
It's because Unison are faced with loads of outsourced parts of local govt, where people cannot strike, even if they wanted to, next week. Any active member can see what's going on is just a legal divide and rule, as the workers are often doing the same jobs and on the same Ts&Cs.
If Unison did have a debate the result would be that secondary action is desirable. Labour don't want it and offending Labour would screw up so many political careers at Unison (whose officials are about the only people left who still believe in the Labour Party).
Regards,
Martin
( I did write something more but lost it 
)
martinh wrote:
It's because Unison are faced with loads of outsourced parts of local govt, where people cannot strike, even if they wanted to, next week. Any active member can see what's going on is just a legal divide and rule, as the workers are often doing the same jobs and on the same Ts&Cs.
actually private sector workers on the same T&Cs - NJC - are striking with us. but not those on other T&Cs, those who weren't TUPEd, for example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2242097/Unions-demand-strike-action-rights-in-return-for-Labour-party-donations.html