Re: Martin Spellman on TUs

["D OC" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A Chairde,

Martin Spellman certainly hit the nail on the head in his comments on the
limitations of the importance of individuals getting elected at the top of
TUs. No marxist or leftist worth their salt would disagree - it is the
masses who change history not individual leaders. Moreover, many if not
most, self-proclaimed 'left-wing' TU leaders are basically old-style social
democrats.

The reason I support the election of such individuals is principally
two-fold:

1. The election of a 'left' winger as opposed to a Blairite puppy dog is
indicative of a shift somewhere within the TU base - Sir Ken Jackson was as
right wing as they come and to have him and his cronies in charge of the
second largest trade union in Britain was a disgrace. This is a symbol of
the shattering of the Blairite hegemony over the wider labour movement -
what comes of it is unknown - at least to me - but it must be seen in a
positive light.

2. The election of individuals likely to take less lapdogish positions with
respect to the labour leadership will impact on the discourse dominant in
the public mind. The last newspapers I saw on the stands in London were the
Daily Mail forecasting a summer of industrial dispute - most notably
'They're going to ruin your holiday next' [air flight control workers]. This
right-wing reaction demonstrates that the election of people like Bob Crow
at the RMT and the more militant leadership of UNISON is changing the centre
of discussion. Issues relating to working-class interest appear centre-stage
as opposed to the usual tittle-tattle of the gossip columns. Slightly more
left-wing leaders (or at least those intent on representing their members'
interests) will raise issues which the current leadership won't - let's not
forget that Ken Jackson supported PPPs.

Derek Simpson's comments on neither supporting or opposing Blair must be
seen in context; however, the man is trying to build a majority for action
(even the one-day stoppages you find so dissappointing). He will need to
avoid portraying himself as a 'loony left' or he could do more damage than
good, e.g. he might call action without support - he's after winning an
election with just over 50% of the vote - such talk is to be expected in
order to get that result embedded.

You criticised the formation of 'super-unions' from the coalescence of
medium sized ones - this, to me, is probably just the socialisation of
unions to represent the greater socialisation of labour forms. As for it
being unprincipled, it needs to be looked at case-by-case, but the MSF-AEEU
merger always was on the cards - they both mainly represent well-paid
workers in the construction and manufacturing sectors. From a bourgeois
viewpoint, the logic of the formation of a massive union like Amicus is that
union membership is falling (although I think the AEEU was one of the only
ones which have experienced growth in the 1990s - something the Blairites
never stopped attributing to Sir Ken Jackson's right-wing stances).

Is mise
D OC


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.