SOLIDARITY Magazine

We Have Moved

2007-06-15T19:18:00.000+01:00

We have moved to http://solidaritymagazine.wordpress.com

2007-06-07T13:07:00.000+01:00

Postal Workers Back Strike Action

Results announced at our annual conference in Bournemouth:

Royal Mail Pay:Yes: 66,064 (77.5%)No: 19,199
Post Office Ltd (Counters):Yes: 2740 (73%)No: 993
Cash In Transit:Yes: 545 (66%)No: 283

Postal workers have voted strongly in favour of taking industrial action over pay, in what would be the first national postal strike since 1996.

The CWU is in dispute with the Royal Mail over its 2.5% pay offer. A series of walkouts will now be held by about 130,000 CWU members unless new talks can lead to a breakthrough in the dispute.

Deputy General Secretary, Dave Ward, said:"This yes vote shows absolutely clearly that Royal Mail workers have rejected the compeny's business plan, the company's leadership amd the unacceptable pay offer. Royal Mail leaders say they listen to people; this is the clearest message they have ever had. Royal Mail has to listem and return to serious negotiations."

2007-06-07T13:00:00.000+01:00

Migrant Workers To Vote On Strike Action At Roadchef Services On M3 At Winchester Over Withdrawal Of Essential Transport To Work

Roadchef’s withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links
7 Jun 2007

Roadchef's withdraws five times a day staff transport costing £150,000 per annum to M3 service station with motorway only access and no public transport links

GMB Southern Region has given permission for an industrial action ballot to be held for GMB members employed by Roadchef on the service station between junctions 8 and 9 north of Winchester. The dispute is over the withdrawal of coach transport to and from the site for staff from June 9th 2007.

The coach travels from Southampton and picks up at Eastleigh and Winchester to the service station north and the service station south and then back to Southampton. It takes an hour to travel from Southampton to the service station south. There is no interchange between the service station north and the service station south and the only access to these two service stations is from the motorway and there is no public transport links whatsoever. The service operates five times a day at 6 a.m., 9 a.m., 2 p.m., 10.p.m. from Southampton and 7 p.m.from service station north back to Southampton. The service is used by over 90% of the 80 staff who are mainly migrant workforce who are mainly from Polandand Portugal. The overwhelming majority of these staff are GMB members. The company has had difficulty recruiting staff to work at this remote service station and had to lay on transport to attract a workforce.

The employers have been threatening to withdraw the service on the grounds that it is costing them too much since February of this year. The staffs have been in a state of uncertainty for almost five months. On the 17th May 2007 the company have given formal notice that the transport service will be withdrawn as of the 9th June 2007. After that date staff will have to make their own arrangements to get to work. Management have offered staff £5.80 a day towards the cost of travelling over 70 miles round trip each day on the motorway. The only way staff can get to work is by road transport and 90% of the staff do not own cars and could not afford to buy and run them since they are low paid workers.

Negotiations between the company and GMB at local level have failed to reach agreement and the union faced with the unilateral withdrawal of the service on 9th June are now proceeding to an industrial action ballot to secure the reinstatement of the essential staff transport. This is because members who are unable to get to work will be deemed to have dismissed themselves.

Gary Cook, GMB Organiser said, "This is a cowardly attack by an already profitable company on some of the most vulnerable workers in the UK on the grounds of reducing the cost of an essential transport service just to boost profits. GMB will defend our members and we will respond to this attack. GMB will get overwhelming support from our members for action to solve their problem of getting to and from work.

GMB want to meet the owners Delek to sort out this problem. We want them to maintain the transport service until we arrive at a solution."

2007-06-01T13:16:00.000+01:00

Save Gloucester Mail Centre - Demo
March & Rally
Saturday 23rd June 2007

Preparations are well underway to hold a March and Rally through Gloucester on Saturday 23rd June. This will be along the lines of The Coventry rally, that some members attended recently.

The route and meeting place are still under discussion with the Police and Highways Authority.
The start time is most likely to be around 1pm, allowing as many people to attend as possible.

A list of speakers are being contacted to speak at the Rally, which is likely to be in Gloucester Docks.

All of the details will be made available here as they are confirmed. - http://www.savegloucestermailcentre.co.uk/

LATEST - Confirmed speakers -Billy Hayes CWU General Secretary
Kevin Beazer - CWU South West Regional SecretaryParmjit Dhanda MP (Gloucester)David Drew MP (Stroud)Trevor Hall TGWU (Unite) Industrial Organiser.

2007-05-11T17:47:00.000+01:00

Royal Mail Offer Rejected And Postal Strike Ballot To Go Ahead

The Communication Workers Union’s executive has formally rejected what Royal Mail describes as their full and final offer on pay. The talks around pay include the future of the industry and the impact of competition and automation.

In 2006 Royal Mail and CWU agreed a joint approach to deal with the impact of competition and automation. A centre piece of the agreement was Royal Mail’s commitment to negotiate change, whilst focusing on higher basic pay and permanently raising the value and status of jobs by April 2007.

Deputy General Secretary Postal, Dave Ward said “Royal Mail has abandoned our agreed approach in favour of a short sighted Business Plan that amounts to a cost cutting frenzy, reductions in pay and a defeatist attitude towards competition. This Business Plan is designed to fail and demonstrates a real lack of vision by the people running the company”.

Royal Mail’s business plan will result in 40,000 job losses, attacks on pension arrangements, closures of mail centres and delivery offices and a reduction in pay for postal workers to ‘the market rate’. It will also result in a reduction and decrease in quality of service for the public.

Royal Mail claim that postal workers are overpaid by 30%.

The union is continuing with its ballot for industrial action.

2007-05-09T17:47:00.000+01:00

Iraqi Oil Workers to Strike Over Privatisation Law

Iraq’s largest oil workers’ trade union will strike this Thursday, inprotest at the controversial oil law currently being considered by the Iraqi parliament. The move threatens to stop all exports from the oil-rich country.The oil law proposes giving multinational companies the primary role indeveloping Iraq’s huge untapped oilfields, under contracts lasting up to30 years.

Oil production in Iraq, like in most of the Middle East, hasbeen in the public sector since the 1970s.The Union, representing 26,000 oil workers, has held three previous strikes since 2003, each time stopping exports, for up to two days at atime.

The announcement of the strike has spurred negotiations with the Ministry of Oil, which are ongoing. Imad Abdul-Hussain, Federation Deputy Chair of the IFOU said: "The central government must be in total ownership and complete control of production and the export of oil". He warned against the controversial Production Sharing Agreements favoured by foreign companies, saying other forms of co-operation with foreign companies would be acceptable but not at the level of control and profiteering indicated in thecurrent Oil Law.

Federation President Hassan Jumaa Awad al Assadi said: ‘The oil law does not represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people. It will let the foreign oil companies into the oil sector and enact privatisation under so called production sharing agreements. The federation calls for not passing the oil law, because it does not serve the interests of the Iraqi people."

The Union is not alone in its’ condemnation of the current oil law. Opponents of the law also include all of Iraq’s other trade unions, a number of political parties, and a group of over 60 senior Iraqi oil experts. Hassan Jumaa went on to say: "The federation calls on all unions in the world to support our demands and to put pressure on governments and the oil companies not to enter the Iraqi oil fields."

Union members are also demanding an improved salary structure and a distribution of land for building homes. Ewa Jasiewicz of Naftana – the UK Support Committee for the IFOU said:‘The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions, like any union, has the right toengage in collective bargaining over issues important to their members. In this case, the issue of who controls Iraq’s oil and the economic future of the country is an issue which is important to all Iraqis. The Union has repeatedly called for civil society inclusion in the drafting of the oil law and has been ignored. They are now asserting their right to have a voice in the decision making process affecting their industry and Iraq’s economic future – their courage and commitment to democracy should be supported’.

Instead of the union’s participation being welcomed, leaders have been accused of jeopardizing security and threatened with legal action. Farouq Al-Asadi, the Federation's Secretary said: ‘The Oil Minister chooses to forget that the right to strike is guaranteed by the constitution - we have chosen the legal path’. Union leaders have already received a number of death threats which they are taking seriously.

"As soon as the federation called for the strike,many of our members and officials were physically threatened by parties active in the political process, with the aim of thwarting the strike and undermining the message of the strike organisers."

Contacts
Hassan Jumaa Awad Al Assadi, President of the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions
00964 7801 001 196 or 00964 7804 114 619 www.basraoilunion.org

Sami Ramadani, lecturer and writer and member of Naftana – UK SupportCommittee for the IFOU 0044 7863 138 748 sami.ramadani@londonmet.ac.uk

Ewa Jasiewicz, Naftana UK Support Group for the IFOU and Hands Off IraqiOil Campaign 0044 7749 421 576 freelance@mailworks.org www.handsoffiraqioil.org

Notes
The IFOU is an independent trade union representing workers across 4 southern provinces in Iraq: Misan, Dhi Qar, Basra and Mauthanna in nine oil and gas related companies.The Union has been organizing since April 2003 and has stopped oil exports and production over wages and workers rights in the past. It has also held protests against oil smuggling, former regime bosses and what the union sees as the deliberate neglect and degradation of the industryin order to justify private investment.

Union members have carried out reconstruction work on drilling rigs,port equipment, pipelines and refineries since the invasion with minimal, mostly local resources.The Union is not linked to any political party in Iraq but has memberswhich belong to various parties.The Union enjoys the support of trade unions and civil society organizations around the world including the International Confederationof Energy, Mining and General Workers Union (ICEM), the AFL-CIO in the US, and the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) in the UK including the NUJ and TGWU. The union is partnered with UK development charity War on Want, the 3 milllion strong US Labor Against War in the USA, and Italian NGOUn Ponte Per.

2007-05-08T18:18:00.000+01:00

Sign the e-petition against Regional Fire Controls

Below is the link to the e-petition against the government's move to Regional Fire Controls.
Please take the time to sign it.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaveourService/

2007-05-07T15:42:00.000+01:00

International Labor Delegation to Israel and Palestine, April 2007
Conclusions and Recommendations

The delegation members have discussed and adopted the following points as a working paper that will guide our common effort to improve the conditions of local and migrant, Palestinian and Israeli, Arab and Jewish workers.

1. In the last of week of April 2007, an international labor delegation of seven members visited Israel and Palestine, meeting the key players in the field of employment in Israel's agricultural sector. The delegation was initiated and organized by the independent workers' association WAC-Maan, operating in Israel mainly with Arab workers. The delegation's aim was to create pressure toward ending the violation of labor rights in this field. It proceeded in the best spirit of working-class solidarity, adopting the slogan: "An injury to one is an injury to all".

2. We met representatives of the Israeli government, including the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Labor; that of Agriculture; the parliamentary committee on migrant workers; the General Federation of Israeli Trade Unions (Histadrut); Kav La'Oved and the Hotline for Migrant Workers (NGO’s), academic figures; the Thai Embassy to Israel; Israeli farmers; Arab workers organized by WAC and Thai workers working on Israeli farms. In its visit to the West Bank, the delegation met the PA Minister of Labor, the General Secretary of the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions, the Director of the Democracy and Workers' Rights Center and several union representatives in Ramallah and Abu Dis.

3. The delegation members received a first-hand understanding of the labor market in Israel and Palestine in the farm sector. These wide- ranging meetings led us to conclude that workers' conditions in Israel's agricultural sector are characterized by extreme exploitation; on many occasions they contravene both Israeli and international law, especially ILO conventions C111 and C100 and the UN Convention to Protect All Migrant Workers and their Families (1990). This situation contributes to extreme poverty, a high unemployment level among Palestinian workers, modern types of slavery practiced against Thai migrant workers, a lack of job opportunities for Arab women in Israel and a growing situation of anarchy in the labor market as a whole.

4. These key problems have to be dealt with as follows:

• The closure policy which Israel imposes on the Palestinian workers in the West Bank and Gaza should be lifted at once. The 15,000 Palestinian laborers who worked on Israeli farms until 1993 should be allowed to return to their jobs, in order to alleviate the social catastrophe in these two areas.
• More than 26,000 migrant workers from Thailand pay between $6,000 and $9,000 for a permit to come to Israel and work on farms. They receive salaries equivalent to 60% of Israel's minimum wage. These practices should be stopped by both the government of Israel and its Thai counterpart.
• Arab women in Israel suffer from a low level of participation in the labor force (only 17%). Only if they work, however, can the society emerge from chronic poverty. Arab women are willing to work on Israeli farms, but the presence of indebted, exploited workers from Thailand makes it impossible to compete for jobs.
• To fight the anarchy in the Israeli labor market, the authorities should stop allowing manpower companies and subcontractors to employ workers without giving them full social rights. Labor organizations must give workers—all workers—the support net they need to fight for their rights. Only workers' organizations can bring the needed change.

5. The Israeli and Thai governments have been negotiating an agreement that will end the huge admission fees paid by Thai workers who travel to Israel. We learned that nothing has come of these talks (despite Israeli Government decision No. 4024 from July 31, 2005). It is the responsibility of both governments, through their employment offices, to take control of this process, guaranteeing that this new type of slave trade is stopped and that workers' rights are not violated.

6. Coming from trade unions and labor organizations, we, the undersigned delegates, unite in our commitment to make this visit a starting point for an international campaign supporting this country's workers – Palestinian and Israeli, Arab and Jewish, local and migrant – in their fight for dignity and full social rights.

7. We will work, each in his/her country, to present the findings of the visit and to help create better awareness concerning the situation of workers in Israel and Palestine. We shall seek support for the effort by local trade unions and NGO’s to overcome national borders and help the workers achieve unity in the fight for their rights.

8. We shall involve other farm laborers' unions worldwide, especially in areas where Israeli farm products are sold, to end the violation of workers' rights in Israel's agricultural sector. Israel must be pressured to abide by the international conventions concerning migrant workers, Palestinian workers and local Arab and Jewish workers.

9. International and regional labor institutions and trade union organizations—such as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC-CSI-IGB) and the International Federation of Farm workers (IUF) —should be updated on the conclusions of this delegation. We see ourselves as forerunners of a more widely representative delegation of farm workers' unions, which will mobilize the huge moral and political clout of the international labor movement.

Signatories:

Cecilia Sanz Fernandez - General Secretary of the Farm Workers Union in Spain (affiliated to the CCOO)
Antonio Perianes Pedrero, Farm Workers Union in Spain (affiliated to the CCOO) Andalucia Province
Endy Hagen - member of the German Trade Union Ver.di F.B.8
Hartwig Otto - member of the German Trade Union Ver.di F.B.8
Melody Gonzalez – representing the Coalition of Imokelli Workers (CIW), based in Miami, Florida.
Junia Lek Ympersrt - leader of the Thai Labor Campaign (TLC)
Issam Wahba – Head of Education and PR Dep. In the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions in Nablus PGFTU

The delegation's visit was organized and coordinated by WAC-Ma'an. WAC's National Coordinator Assaf Adiv and Roni Ben Efrat – Head of International Relations Department. WAC will conduct the ongoing network.

Assaf Adiv, National Coordinator – WAC-Ma'an

2007-05-01T21:41:00.000+01:00

Workers to the Top of the Agenda
Arab & Jewish Workers to march together on May Day
WAC-Ma'an organizes march in Tel Aviv

The Workers Advice Center (WAC-Ma'an) has organized a march for workers’ rights under the title “Workers to the top of the Agenda,” in honor of the First of May. Arab and Jewish workers will gather at the corner of Rothschild and Sheinkin at 17:00 on May 1. They will be joined by unions and other organizations that are active in defending workers’ rights. They will then march to Tel Aviv's Cinematheque Plaza, where they will hold an assembly at 18:00. The following speakers will address the group:

For WAC: Assaf Adiv and Asma Agbarieh; for the Hotline for Migrant Workers: Ami Saar; for Kav LaOved: Roy Wagner; for Tel Aviv University Legal Aid Clinic: Attorney Itai Swirsky, Dr. Itzhak Saporta. WAC's Wafa Tyara will speak in a special ceremony to commend those who contributed during the past year to the struggle of organizing the working class. Between speeches the following musicians will perform: Amir Lev, Dan Toren, Yasmin Even, Natan Slor, and Yoel Ben Simhon.

An international delegation of labor unions will also be present. This delegation, invited by WAC, is currently visiting Israel and Palestine. Junya Lek Yimprasert from the Thai union, TLC, will take the stage.

To mark May Day, WAC has cooperated with poets and editors of cultural publications to issue an anthology of class-conscious poems entitled “Red.” Magazines joining WAC in this publication are Etgar, a political and cultural magazine; Ma’ayan, a poetry magazine; and Hakivun Mizrah.

Some of the poets read at a poetry evening in Kufr Qara on April 27. The encounter between Arab and Jewish poets, on the one hand, and 60 farm and construction workers from WAC on the other, was exciting and unique. Among the poets in the anthology are: Aiman Kamel Agbarieh, Samiah el Kasem, Sheli Elkayam, Dvorah Amir, Ro’i Arad, Erez Biton, Galit Wasker, Nidaa Khoury, Oded Karmeli Itzhak Laor, Amir Lev, Gilad Meiri, Itai Meirson, Hussein Mahaneh, Sami Mahaneh, Fairuk Mussi, Marwan Makhol, Mirsol (Mira Hevroni), Efrat Mishori, Salman Matzalkha, Nir Nader, Amit Neufeld, Eitan Glas Nahmias, Tal Nitzan, Amir Naaman, Naval Nafaa, Yehezkiel Nefshi, Roni Sumak, Pete Seeger, Yehoshua Simon, Naif Salim, Debbie Saar, Braha Sari, Turki Amer , Taha Muhammad Ali, Tzvi Atsmon, Oded Peled, Dalia Pelah, Aharon Shabtai, Yaara Shkhori, Bashir Shalesh, Matti Schmauluf, Ester Shkelim, Dan Toren.

At the May Day assembly in the Cinematheque Plaza, there will also be an exhibit of art and poetry, including all works of art published till now in YNet’s weekly column Beit Ha’am (Ynet is the website of the Ydiout Ahronot daily). This weekly column presents a work of art beside a poem addressing current reality. The Ynet column and the May Day gallery are sponsored by WAC and Etgar magazine.

2007-05-01T21:33:00.000+01:00

RMT and OILC take steps towards joining forces
Publication Date: May 1 2007

AFTER SEVERAL months of fruitful talks between the Offshore Industry Liaison Committee and the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ Union, details of an historic proposal to unite the two unions are being finalised by officials.

Delegates at the OILC conference, to be held in Aberdeen on October 6, will decide whether to put the proposal to transfer engagements and become RMT's offshore section to a ballot of the OILC's more than 2,000 members.

The move to bring the two unions together has already been endorsed by a special general meeting of RMT, held in Doncaster in March, and has the support of the entire OILC executive.

RMT, Britain's fastest growing union, already organises divers and catering workers in the offshore industry, and recently won its more than 900 North Sea divers and support staff a 45 per cent pay rise after a ten-day, all-out strike.

OILC, which organises offshore engineering, drilling, construction and support workers, was set up following the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster, which claimed 167 lives.

"Democracy, integrity, transparency and acccountability are at the very heart of RMT and it is refreshing to be talking to an organisation built on grass-roots involvement rather than so-called partnership," said OILC general secretary Jake Molloy.

"RMT's track record, not least on the recent divers' dispute, supports our view that it is a union prepared to fight for workers' rights, and the OILC executive is united behind the proposal, which will now be put to our members," Jake Molloy said.

"Our two unions have the same outlook and organise in the same offshore maritime sector, and joining forces makes sound industrial sense," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said.

"Bringing OILC and RMT together will benefit the members of both unions, and deliver more industrial clout in an industry that is notoriously difficult to organise in," Bob Crow said.

2007-04-25T19:13:00.000+01:00

TGWU Executive Recalled over "Super Union" Name Debacle

The Amicus CC website reports

The T&G leadership have had to concede to recalling its Executive tomorrow (25th April), after failing to convince the Executive members with a two page letter last week that there was no going back on using the name 'Unite' because the name had been registered by Amicus and all the publicity material for the new union had already been printed.

This latest set back for the TGWU leadership follows it losing a 6 to 2 vote at the Finance and General Purposes meeting on Thursday 12th April over balloting the membership on a name for the new union.

The T&G Leadership had apparently given a commitment throughout merger process that the membership would be given a democratic vote on the name of the new union. This was confirmed on the front cover of the March/April TG Record announcing the successful 'yes' vote of the unions' membership to merge.

Preparatory work on choosing a name for the new union is almost complete, and alternatives will be put before the membership in a democratic vote in the near future." The ditching of the ballot of the membership has created a serious division between the leadership and the lay members of the Executive, who see the issue now not just about the question of the name but one of a test of lay member democracy, and ultimately, who will control and decide on policy when the new union is formed in May. And this on top of the T&G leadership's failure to support John McDonnell and the 'merger' agreement with the UNited Steel Workers.

It is also understood that motion 26 (The terms and conditions of the General Secretary) will be raised at the recalled Executive meeting. A busy meeting.

2007-04-21T11:42:00.000+01:00

National Strike Ballot in Royal Mail?

We reproduce below news from the CWU in relation to negootiations with Royal Mail.

Royal Mail Pay 2007

A further meeting took place with Royal Mail yesterday afternoon. The meeting concluded with Royal Mail still refusing to offer our members any basic pay increase. Instead, they revised their position by increasing the range of lump sums on offer from between £250/£400 to £250/£550. These lump sums remain conditional on the Union signing up to specific savings initiatives, most of which amount to significant pay cuts and involve major change.

Royal Mail’s position on local productivity remains unchanged. We have totally rejected Royal Mail’s offer and informed them that their overall position is completely unacceptable to the Union.

We have told Royal Mail that we are prepared to deal with Major Change, Efficiency and the Challenges facing the company – but this is conditional on them significantly improving our members’ terms and conditions and honouring the commitments they made to raise the value and status of postal workers’ jobs.

A key factor in our negotiations has been our insistence that Royal Mail back off from introducing panic driven cost cutting measures at local level. Therefore, we have offered Royal Mail the opportunity for a moratorium on managerial executive action and industrial action over efficiency issues. This was rejected out of hand by Royal Mail.

The Union remains committed to achieving a negotiated settlement but we cannot allow Royal Mail to drive down our members’ terms and conditions.

We have advised Royal Mail that we are prepared to continue negotiations. However, the business has left us with no alternative other than to prepare the ground for an industrial action ballot. Therefore, CWU Headquarters has begun the process of ensuring that membership lists are up to date and meet the necessary legal requirements.

Following a joint meeting yesterday with the Postal Executive and Divisional Reps, we have asked the Divisional Representatives to take a number of initiatives designed to gain support for the Union’s course of action.

We will be writing direct to members next week to explain the overall position. In the meantime, it is essential that Branches continue to communicate face to face with our members at every opportunity.
Yours sincerely

Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary

2007-04-18T17:44:00.000+01:00

Firefighters union makes cash donation to SNP

SCOTTISH Nationalists today welcomed donations from the Fire Brigades Union to several SNP candidates in next month's Holyrood and council elections. It is the first time the party has had support of this kind from any trade union.

Justice spokesman Kenny MacAskill, who is fighting Edinburgh East & Musselburgh and is top of the Lothians list, has been given £500 and West Lothian council group leader Peter Johnston £250. The FBU, which disaffiliated from the Labour Party in 2004, said it had made a number of donations to candidates from a range of parties who had been helpful to it in the past or had given commitments for future action.

Meanwhile, First Minister Jack McConnell was today due to address the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Yesterday, the STUC's general council agreed by just one vote to back Labour in the May 3 elections. SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, also visiting the STUC, attacked Labour's use of private finance initiatives for public projects.

2007-03-29T20:38:00.000+01:00

Report of the Isreali Workers Advice Center visit to Britain (March 2007)

Swindon TUC was pleased to help to facilitate a visit to Britain by the Israeli Workers Advice Center. The purpose of the visit was twofold:

To provide WAC with the opportunity of acquainting the British unions with their work organising workers, campaigning against the discrimination which Arab Israelis suffer in Israel, and against the closure which denies the right of Palestinians from the occupied territories to work in Israel.

To learn about the work of British unions and the struggles they are involved in.

To that end they were able to meet with:

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack and other national officers, including the union's international officer Dean Mills.
RMT General Secretary Bob Crow, President John Leach and members of the Council of Executives.
The TUC's International Officer Owen Tudor.
The GMB's international officer Joni McDougall.
Officers from UNISON's international department, Nick Siegler and Nick Crook.
John McDonnell MP, secretary of a number of union Parliamentary Groups.
South West TUC Secretary Nigel Costley.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign's Trade Union Officer Bernard Regan.

In addition they visited Camden UNISON, the GMB's Swindon office to learn about the union's migrant worker organising, and were able to speak to Bristol TUC and a special meeting organised by Oxford TUC.

The RMT was good enough to provide accomodation in London for the delegation which comprised Assaf Adiv (National Coordinator), Khitam Na'amneh (Women's Organiser) and Roni Ben Efrat (International Relations).

The visit succeeded in making WAC's activities more widely known and opening up a dialogue with British unions, with a view to developing fraternal relations. In particular the meetings with the TUC and the national unions mean that WAC is recognised as a legitimate element in the equation of the Palestinian and Israeli workers movement.

A number of offers were made such as a two page spread in the RMT members' paper, RMT News, regular exchange of reports, which will be followed up.

Any trade union delegation visiting Israel and Palestine has an open invitation to meet with WAC.

The officially recognised union federation in Israel is the Histadrut. WAC organises outside this framework, in part because its activities were initially concentrated on the Arab/Palestinian Israeli population, which is not generally organised by the Histadrut. WAC concentrates its efforts on the massive task of organising amongst the 70% of workers who are unorganised. As an organisation comprised of Jews and Arabs, working together as equals, it also seeks to organise workers regardless of their race, nationality or religion.

For instance, it organises staff of Israeli Educational TV who are employed on a 'temporary' basis in order to deny them the rights of permanent employees. Most of these are Jewish workers. (See http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/tahi.html )

WAC originated, as the name suggests, as an advice and support centre helping workers who had no voice in Histadrut to deal with problems in the workplace (or the unemployment offices). However, it moved on to tackling collective issues. In the context of the Israeli situation one of its key tasks was to fight for jobs for Arab Israeli citizens, firstly in the building industry (many workers had been driven out of the industry by conscious government policy of important cheaper foreign labour under conditions of super-exploitation) and latterly in Agriculture. WAC had to tackle the racism and prejudice according to which Arab workers are 'lazy' or uninterested in gaining jobs.

Consequently WAC is a hybrid type of organisation, an NGO, but one with the aspiration to build an independent trade union movement, albeit it under very difficult conditions.Whilst there are other NGOs doing good work in supporting oppressed workers, and the unemployed, campaigning for rights etc, WAC is unique insofar as it brings together Arabs and Jews with the perspective of building an independent workers' movement and a radical trade union which sees itself as part of the struggle of the working class internationally, challenging 'globalisation'.

It's opposition to the oppression of the 20% of the Israeli population which is Arab/Palestinian, makes it difficult to build support amongst the Jewish population, at least without a break with the Zionist outlook which sees Israel as 'a state of the Jews'. Nevertheless its work shows the practical possibility of building a movement which unites Jews and Arabs.

For more information on WAC visit its web site at: http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/

You can receive WAC's bi-monthly English language newsletter by emailing assafa@MAAN.org.il

The Israeli English language magazine Challenge, which is devoted to examining the Israel/Palestine conflict, has regular reports on the activities of WAC: http://www.challenge-mag.com/

Whilst the delegation was in Britain, The Mall, a short (12 minute) DVD about ‘Illegal’ Palestinian workers squatting in an unfinished Mall in Tel Aviv and searching for work on a daily basis, was shown at an International Documentary Film Festival in Oxford. The DVD was made by Video 48, which works with WAC (see http://www.video48.com/ ).

Also available are:

A Job To Win – a film about WAC’s campaign to get Arab Israelis back into the construction industry.
The Mission - a film of a visit by a European Trade Union delegation to Israel and the West Bank organised by WAC.
Breaking Walls – a film about a mural painted by US artist Mike Alewitz in an Arab Israeli village, Dani Ben Simhon who gave up a potentially lucrative art career to devote his efforts to organising for WAC, and Musav Salameh, a building worker, who is kept apart from his parents in the West Bank by Israel's separation wall.

Our thanks to those who helped with the visit and to the following organisations for their financial support which made the trip possible:

Bracknell Amicus
Bridgwater TUC
Bristol RMT
FBU
Oxford TUC
RMT
Socialist Unity Network
Swindon TUC
Waterloo RMT
Wiltshire & Swindon GMB

Martin Wicks
Secretary Swindon TUC

2007-03-26T18:45:00.000+01:00

East London Mental Health Ballot Result Report

courtesy of Labournet 25/03/07

In response to the consultation paper the branch stewards committee agreed to hold workplace ballots at our 5 main hospital sites. (This Trust has 54 designated community sites) with a membership of 700 across all. The Branch committee made no recommendation on the pay offer and simply put the questions to the membership.

We publicized the ballot through the Trust intranet, email, and via word of mouth via the stewards network across the organization.

The membership responded and we issued 304 ballot papers - 300 were valid returns.
The workplace ballot proved to be very popular and we were able to recruit a large number of new members as a direct result of the ballot. The RMS now has over 700 members allocated to this branch, a significant increase!

The figures produced a 90% rejection of the pay award and in support of industrial action.
East London Mental HealthPAY OFFER 2007 CONSULTATIVE BALLOT

1. Do you wish to accept or reject the 2. 5% pay increase as awarded by the Pay Review Body?
ACCEPT18
REJECT282

2. Do you wish to accept or reject the Government’s staged pay award for nurses, other health professionals and NHS staff not covered by the Review Body
ACCEPT14
REJECT268

3. Would you consider taking industrial action, including strike action in support of an increased pay deal?
Would support industrial Action272
Would not support industrial action24

2007-03-07T21:01:00.000Z

Union to move towards balloting signallers throughout Britain

RMT SIGNALLERS working for Network Rail in Scotland have demonstrated their anger over the company's failure to implement their 35-hour week agreement with a "rock-solid" strike, RMT said today.

As more than 400 signallers and supervisory staff stopped work at noon today at the start of a 48-hour strike, the union warned Network Rail that the union's executive would next week put in place plans for a ballot of signallers across Britain

"Reports from RMT organisers and reps across Scotland tell us that our members' strike is absolutely rock-solid," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"Network Rail should understand that our members are determined to achieve the 35-hour week we agreed to last July, and it is the company that holds a very simple solution in its hands.

"The few trains that have run in Scotland today have done so with the help of inadequatetly trained managers, some of whom have been shipped in from as far afield as Lincolnshire and Kent and put in charge of signal boxes with just a few hours' training

"Rather than risking lives by putting scab managers in charge of signal boxes the company should be concentrating its efforts on implementing the agreement we reached with them eight months ago.

"Network Rail now has the choice of engaging constructively with us to resolve this dispute or facing a ballot of our signalling members throughout Britain," Bob Crow said.

2007-03-01T18:40:00.000Z

Appeal Court Rules Firefighters Cannot Be Forced To Attend 999 Medical Emergencies On Behalf of the Ambulance Service
FBU Press Release
28 February 2007

An appeal brought by two fire authorities seeking to force firefighters to answer 999 medical emergencies on behalf of the ambulance service has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal in London today.

The Fire Brigades Union welcomed the decision and were awarded their legal costs.The legal case focused on whether firefighters could be required under their contracts of employment to participate in so-called “co-responder” calls. It follows the attempted introduction of co-responder schemes at Retford Fire Station in Nottinghamshire and Grantham Fire Station in Lincolnshire.

Fire crews at Retford had 10% of their pay cut for over a year by local managers trying to force them to attend very serious medical emergencies on behalf of the ambulance service. Local managers had never tried to reach an agreement on the changes.In both areas fire crews are sent to the highest category of medical emergencies on behalf of the local ambulance service. The arrival of fire crews ‘stops the clock’ and counts in the official NHS ambulance response statistics as if a proper ambulance paramedic has arrived.

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack: “We welcome the ruling but are dismayed that senior fire service managers have thrown council tax money away on legal fees and court costs. These two fire authorities tried to impose these schemes without agreement, with no national discussions, with no proper procedures and with no UK wide standards. Our repeated calls for dialogue and discussion at national level have been constantly ignored.

Fire crews are not going to give away their employment rights. And they’re not going to let anyone take them away either.

Large numbers of firefighters do not even have their basic first aid certificates up to date. Fire crews know nothing of diagnosis, medical protocols or how to ensure there is no cross-infection with bugs such as MRSA.

Against a background of cuts and increased responsibilities fire and rescue services are struggling to provide time and resources maintain our members’ fire service skills never mind being forced into providing an ambulance service. Enthusiastic firefighters with basic first aid skills are not the sort of response the public expect when they dial 999 and ask for an emergency ambulance.

NHS targets for ambulance arrival times allow the very basic first aid provided under these schemes to count as if an ambulance paramedic has arrived. There is no target for the ambulance to arrive which can mean a worse service is covered up by misleading response statistics suggesting the opposite.

2007-01-06T17:09:00.000Z

National conference for NHS campaigners

20th January 2006 - 11am - Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, London(opposite Euston Station)

Across the country local campaigns are starting up to protect local NHSservices. We are inviting all NHS campaigners to come together to findways to urgently intensify the pressure on the government to change theirapproach on the NHS.There will be speakers to provide an overview on the political situationand on what we have learnt from the campaign so far, along with workshopsessions where campaigning ideas can be developed in smaller groups.Speakers include Tony Benn, John Lister, Jacky Davis and Sally Ruane.

We are inviting NHS campaigns to send up to 3 delegates. All remainingplaces are available on a first come first served basis and we welcomeanyone interested in actively campaigning in support of the NHS. Toregister for places send delegate names to olivia@nhscampaign.org
01273 234822.

There is a fee of £5 for each place.It crucial to build for the TUC led national event on 3 March and to worktogether where we can.More details from the KONP campaign, NHS Support Federation, 113 QueensRoad, Brighton, BN1 3XG

2006-12-20T19:15:00.000Z

Israeli Educational TV Workers

Israeli Educational TV is forcing new employment arrangements for Freelance Workers that are exploitative and unacceptable. ETV, a governmental institution, is creating a false norm. WAC organizes the Freelance Workers and calls for immediate negotiations in order to ensure their rights.

Freelance workers in Educational Television are being asked to sign new agreements that will come into force in January 2007. In a letter of December 14 to Ms. Yaffa Vigodski, General Director of Educational Television, WAC claims that the new labor arrangements being forced on freelance workers by Educational Television are exploitative and contravene basic workers’ rights.

The definition of the workers as freelancers is a fiction. These are ordinary employees who work at ETV every day, in some cases for periods lasting years. The move to sign a new contract with them indicates satisfaction with their work; but the management of Educational Television wants to have it both ways – to have a professional, skilful labor force, at the same time cutting costs by depriving the workers of their rights.

As part of this attempt, the management has moved some workers from a full-time basis to twelve days per month while simultaneously recruiting new workers. Many freelancers who have been working for more than a year are now being asked to sign temporary contracts, which will not afford employment benefits.

The new arrangement turns permanent employees into casual workers, forcing their termination every few months. It does not guarantee sick pay, holiday, compassionate leave, pension, or career development. In addition, it (illegally) forbids trade-union membership.
By trying to force its workers to sign the arrangement, Educational Television, a public employer, is creating an abhorrent and unacceptable norm. Thus, the state, which is supposed to protect its citizens, is seeking to harm them.

Exploitation in the work-place has become a national malaise. The Association for Civil Rights published a report this week about the grave situation of workers in Israel. Recently, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor undertook a campaign to inspect and control employers, in order to ensure the application of employment legislation. The case of Educational Television stands in stark contrast to the obligations of public bodies to keep within these rules.

WAC is organizing the Freelance Workers of ETV who are not represented by the Local Workers Committee affiliated to the Histadrut. In the struggle of these workers since June 2006 WAC has collaborated with the Local Workers Committee in the campaign for the rights of these workers and has been able to stop the firing of several. Entering the new phase of the struggle WAC hopes to get the widest support for its demand to start serious negotiations in order to ensure their rights.

For more details: Assaf Adiv – National Coordinator Email: assafa@maan.org.il Mobile: 972-50-4330034

2006-12-01T18:00:00.000Z

Campaign against Royal Mail closures

Royal Mail is proposing to close three major Mail depots, at Reading, Gloucester and Coventry. This is a big test for the CWU since, under the pressure of competition in a liberalised market, Royal Mail will surely look for more closures if they are able to close these three.

The Gloucester CWU has a campaign website at www.savegloucestermailcentre.co.uk which includes a petitition directed at Minister Alistair Darling. As well as signing the petition can you also send a letter to Allan Leighton opposing the proposed closures at:

Allan Leighton
Royal Mail Group Plc
148 Old St
London
EC1V 9HQ

Trades unionists will support the workers whose jobs are under threat. At the same time there is an environmental angle to this issue, since the closure will add to road traffic, both for post and staff.

2006-11-22T13:03:00.000Z

UNISON witch-hunt?

A complaint to the General Secretary of UNISON following the UNISON South West Regional Council on 8th October 2006 stated that a 2-sided A4 colour newsletter of the UNISON UNITED Left South West, which contained my mobile phone number, was apparently printed using UNISON resources outside of the union's Rules.

Unannounced, a team of senior regional officials entered the UNISON offices on the ground floor of Plymouth's Civic Centre on Wednesday 1st November at 11:00am, having confirmed I was in London leading a delegation to lobby Plymouth MP against NHS cuts. All information on the office computers was downloaded, the Branch Administrator and Treasurer questioned, and all records and financial documents taken away.

I was contacted in London and required to hand across my Vaio Laptop and home Personal Computer the next day. I explained the computers had been in my possession for a period of years and contain data, files and information that is personal, confidential and not the property of UNISON.

Whilst I wish to co-operate with the Union and consider myself to have operated within the Rules of the union, I do not feel empowered to hand over the information contained on the machines. Such information includes individual confidential documents, e-mail and Windows XP accounts for three of my adult children as well as myself, work-related specific documents and politically sensitive information, including personal data not relevant to UNISON that I do not have permission to release to the union.

I have offered the investigatory team access to the computers at my home, for the documents to be viewed and UNISON files to be downloaded in my presence or the presence of an observer chosen by me, to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of myself and my family's personal documents is maintained.

I have confirmed that I have used both machines for my own personal use, including the production and storage of documents that are not the business of the trade union. I, like my predecessors, have been gifted computers by the City of Plymouth UNISON Branch in lieu of Honorarium, without any stated restriction placed on their use. I have considered the machines as my own and utilised them accordingly, and have received no guidance to the contrary over a period of 10 years. The current machines in question are registered in my name and contain software registered in my name.

I do not believe in Honoraria and would not accept payments for my union activities as a matter of principle, believing the tenet of voluntary collective organisation as reliant upon the voluntary work of activists. However, like most of my colleagues, I cannot afford the level of equipment required for high levels of publishing and correspondence and consider supply of such equipment as a reasonable trade for the long hours of unpaid work received by the union.

The provision of home and transportable equipment for lead officers has been the custom and practice of this Branch and a long-standing facility offered to activists. Poor and restricted facility time has ensured most branch machinery and administration is maintained outside working hours, with all Branch Secretary letters, all minutes of meetings, newsletters, flyers and other publications produced at home, outside of working hours, voluntarily and without payment. The provision of the tools with which to do the job has been an obvious requirement that the Branch has met in lieu of honoraria to myself as Branch Secretary and my predecessors, with a clear understanding that the equipment may also be for personal use, similar to the day-to-day practice of thousands of trade union representatives across the country.

I see no reason why UNISON has any right to have open access to these computers.
Further, I challenge the organisation and execution of this investigation, and question the practice and motives behind the complaint. Indeed, I am convinced that UNISON would challenge any employer that behaved in this way towards any of our members.

The unannounced arrival at the Branch Office of three UNISON officers was experienced as heavy-handed, unsupportive and offensive. The series of communications leading-up to the arrival of the team can only lead to one conclusion: that it was timed to coincide with my presence in London as the leader of a delegation from UNISON to lobby our MPs against the cuts in the Health Service, and checks were made to ensure I would not be at the Branch office. This implies a prejudgement that I would be a barrier to any investigation, which consequently had to be undertaken in my absence. The conduct of interviews was similarly accusatory, starting from an assumption of wrong-doing. The process was poorly managed and personally offensive. I was given no notice of the interview, no context or introductions and was not able to have anybody present to support me at the first interview. Again, such methods would not be tolerated by UNISON from any employer.

Such an approach to dedicated and hard-working UNISON representatives is inappropriate and, I find, outrageous. A shared approach to dealing with the complaint, and a reasoned dialogue should be a matter of course between colleagues. The methods used have been unnerving of the morale of key activists and a distraction from the urgent business of the Branch and union. Core Officers are under extreme pressure with insufficient capacity to match the newly published plans from the Employer for major Privatisation of Highways services, swiftly on the heels of attacks on discretionary payments and cuts of more than 200 jobs, alongside the pension and pay campaigns reaching a crucial point, and a challenging watershed in the local negotiations on Job Evaluation and Equal Pay.

I am left to conclude that the investigation represents an attack on the Branch and myself. The Branch has a long-established reputation for policy making and policy challenge at regional and national level. My role and political affiliation is widely recognised as challenging to current perspectives and strategies proposed by the national leadership. I am a long-standing member of the Socialist Workers Party and an active member of the RESPECT Party in Plymouth.

This investigation was been initiated within days of my declaration of the intention to stand in the forthcoming National Executive Committee elections. The timing of a strategic investigation into myself and the Branch about practices of supply and use of equipment - practices that have been in place for many years, is questionable. It has, therefore, subjected me to significant personal distress, and subjected those close to me to unnecessary anxiety.

Following initial interview with me the lead investigating officer offered his opinion that this would progress towards a disciplinary process under Rule I. I have since received recorded delivery letters and a series of calls requiring the machines to be handed over to UNISON, with no acknowledgement of the issues relating to confidential information.

I am therefore unable to pass across either of the computers. I wish to comply with the investigation and stay within the rules of the trade union. I am now subject to an instruction from the Regional Secretary hand over the equipment or be deemed to have broken Rule. I consider this instruction as unreasonable and therefore not enforceable, because:
Contested possession: The computers are gifts in place of honorarium to myself, as part of a common approach to resourcing the voluntary work of lead officers of this Branch. To hand over equipment I believe to be mine may compromise my claim to ownership and thereby place me in jeopardy under Rule.

Custom & Practice: I have been supplied with a succession of pieces of computer equipment by a number of UNISON agencies in the South West over a period of 8 years. All equipment has been donated to myself as a volunteer for the trade union, in return for a wide range of data construction, storage and production. At no time have I received guidance or instruction as to the parameters for use of the equipment, nor the ownership of work produced on the machine. I have utilised the equipment in the same way that any private person is entitled to use their personal computers. I therefore contest that this equipment is not within the parameters of the investigation.

Privacy: the computers contain data not the property of UNISON that is subject to protection. There is private information stored about individuals, including memberships of organisations that are not affiliates of UNISON. There is also, accessible through technological trace, up to 8 years of private and confidential e-mail communications, undertaken daily by myself and my family using our own e-mail accounts on all matters, all of which it is my right and the right of my family to have protected as private under Human Rights legislation often used by UNISON in defence of our own members. In addition, there are articles, personal accounts and reflections that detail my personally held beliefs, my political expression and thoughts that were not intended for publication or view, and to which I am unwilling for UNISON representatives, their agents or mediators to have access. To hand over the computers in their current state would, necessarily, compromise the right to privacy of myself and others to whom I am responsible and liable, and therefore place me in jeopardy.

UNISON is now taking legal advice to recover the equipment and information contained on them. I find this excessive and intimidatory given the period of investigation as pre-disciplinary, but assume that I should seek legal advice also. I remain appalled at such treatment at the hands of a trade union to which I have offered unstinting unpaid service for many years.
I intend to defend myself vigorously. I have not broken and would not knowingly break the rules of the union. I remain committed to the aims and objectives of UNISON and a devoted trade union activist. I ask for your formal support, including a letter of concern to :

The General Secretary UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ
Regional Secretary UNISON, UNISON House, The Crescent, Taunton, Somerset TA1 4DU

And a message of support to:

Tony Staunton Tony.Staunton@Blueyonder.co.uk
21 Bayswater Road
PLYMOUTH PL1 5BU Office@unisonplymouth.net

2006-11-22T12:58:00.000Z

Strike ballot in Network Rail

SIGNALLERS THROUGHOUT Network Rail’s West Midlands area are being balloted for strike action by Britain’s biggest rail union after the company failed to step back from the imposition of rosters at Madeley Junction box.

The ballot, of some 175 signallers and supervisory staff, will close on November 30.
RMT today renewed its call on Network Rail to negotiate a settlement as signallers at Madeley Junction held their second 24-hour strike over the imposition of single staffing rosters. Action was also taken on October 23-24.

The dispute began when Network Rail refused to negotiate over new rosters for Madeley Junction as it took on the responsibility for work previously covered by the now closed Lightmoor, Cosford and Codsall boxes.

"Our local reps have made every effort to resolve this dispute by talking, but the company has insisted on going ahead with single staffing and simply refused to consider an alternative that would have provided essential relief," RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

"Network Rail has ignored the need for operators to get adequate time away from their VDU workstations and that is completely unacceptable, not least on safety grounds.

"If Network Rail can impose rosters in one box they will try to do it elsewhere and that holds serious implications for our operations members throughout the West Midlands, and the RMT executive has therefore triggered a ballot of all our signallers in the area," Bob Crow said

2006-11-15T10:57:00.000Z

National Shop Stewards Network

A national meeting called by the RMT attended by 250 union reps has agreed to launch a 'National Shop Stewards Network'.

At a national meeting organised by the RMT and supported by major unions including the TGWU, PCS, FBU, UCU and NUJ, it was decided to organise a delegate conference next year to launch a ‘National Shop Stewards Network’. A steering committee of 10 people was elected to organise it.

Bob Crow in his introduction said that the organisation of workplace reps had always been a barometer of the general health of the trade union movement. “If we are to roll back the tide of privatisation and war…rebuilding the grassroots of the movement is an essential part of that process.”

Barry Camfield for the TGWU said:“We need to change the centre of gravity towards shop floor reps if we are to create the conditions for change.”

Paul Mackney for the University & Colleges Union spoke about the need to rebuild a ‘cadre’ of workplace activists.

A statement drafted by the RMT was agreed. It said:

“We recognise that our ability to protect and advance these values (workers rights, solidarity, equality and unity) and to achieve our shared goals – such as the implementation of the Trade Union Freedom Bill – will be assisted by the development of the broadest possible unity of grassroots trade union activity at the workplace and between workplaces.”

The title ‘shop stewards network’ was shorthand for workplace reps; these could obviously include health & safety and other reps. So the Network would be comprised of workplace reps from TUC affiliated unions. Whilst full-time officials could participate they would only have observer status, with speaking rights.

The aims of the Network would be:

To offer support to TUC affiliated unions in their campaigns and industrial disputes;
To offer support to existing workplace reps and Trades Councils.

Obviously this is only a framework. To the extent that such a body developed it would determine and develop its agenda. Such a Network could be an important development in the light of the crisis facing the unions. Aside from the loss of 5 million trade union members, the decline in workplace organisation has been steep. Despite ‘organising’ efforts there has yet to be a significant rise in union membership. This is not only as a result of a generation of defeats. It also results from the so-called ‘service model’ with its concentration on individual services, creating a culture of a passive membership with no understanding of their responsibility for building their own organisation.

In many industries shop stewards have been trained in the methods of ‘social partnership’, identifying the interests of the workforce with market ‘success’ of ‘their’ company. This has meant that the drive for profitability and productivity has been seen as primary, and some unions have collaborated in the destruction of jobs.

Aside from the obvious role of building support and solidarity, a Network could play a role a key role in developing a serious discussion about rebuilding workplace organisation. It could enable activists to exchange experience and to draw on positive organising efforts in other workplaces.

Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary, speaking at the meeting reported on the experience of NUJ members at the Daily Star. They managed to stop the production of an article entitled the ‘Daily Fatwa’, a supposedly satirical piece directed against Muslims. They took action completely outside the framework of existing employment legislation, a rare event these days, and they got away with it.

Probably the only industry where the example of solidarity action has survived is the Royal Mail, where there is a tradition of refusing to touch mail coming from an area on strike. Challenging the anti-union laws, of course, depends on strong workplace organisation.

The Network which is being proposed will obviously be built at the national level. But its success will depend upon the building of networks in towns and cities, on a cross union basis. Trades Councils could play an important role in this regard. They should be able to participate in it. They strive, albeit under difficult conditions, to build a labour movement in a locality rather than leaving isolated individual unions ploughing their own furrow.

The rebuilding of the unions requires a different culture to the one that has dominated them since the Thatcher years: the building of an active membership which understands that the ‘service’ which a union provides depends upon the collective organisation of the membership on the ground. The role of the Network should include striving to develop a consciousness of the need for independent, fighting, and democratic unions, controlled at every level by the members.

As Dave Chapple said, “we need a democratic grassroots movement that is not dominated by any single party.” The Network should be a framework for practical work rather than an arena for flowery speeches, in which organisations compete against each other.

When John McDonnell spoke in Swindon recently he said that we were on the verge of losing what remains of the gains of the welfare state. The idea that in the face of such attacks, the neo-liberal Blair government can be persuaded to abandon its programme, is pure delusion. Only industrial action will have any impact on it. Yet there is no sign of an industrial response, for instance, in relation to the destruction of the NHS. Building a Network of reps can play an important role in creating conditions in which the government’s programme is answered by struggle instead of the pleading of trade union leaders.

2006-11-07T18:44:00.000Z

Pathways to progress
Reproduced from the Morning Star
(Tuesday 31 October 2006)

GREGOR GALL looks at the potential for progress from two initiatives to get the trade union movement reactivated and draws positives from both approaches.

At the RMT-initiated national shop stewards' conference last Saturday, the 250 trade unionists present passed an enabling statement from the union's executive.

At the Respect-initiated Organising for fighting unions conference on Saturday November 11, those attending will be asked to vote on a statement called the Workers' Charter.

Many of the main speakers at the RMT conference, like Bob Crow and Matt Wrack, will also speak at the Respect conference and the Trade Union Freedom Bill, which was central to gathering at the weekend, will again be crucial.

The RMT statement outlined the basis for establishing a steering group whose task is to help orchestrate the first steps towards creating a national shop stewards network, primarily by organising a formal delegate conference in spring 2007. That conference would see the attempt to create the national shop stewards network itself.

The purpose of the national shop stewards network will be to offer trade unionists help and support in their campaigns and disputes as well as to support existing workplace committees and trades councils.

The proposed Workers' Charter has a much more ambitious task - to promote the right to living wages, union rights, decent public services, protection of the environment, wealth redistribution and the like.

More immediately, the proposed charter states that its priorities will be to organise lobbies and activities in support of the Trade Union Freedom Bill, the Public Services Not Private Profit initiative and so on.

So, although many on the left have commented on the great similarity of the two conferences, concluding that it would have been better to have just one united conference rather than two, the differences are actually quite stark. And they represent significantly different strategies.
If the RMT-initiated conference just gone had been called with the purpose of declaring the establishment of a national shop stewards movement, it would have rightly been derided for being unrealistic and far too ambitious. A conference, no matter how well attended, cannot simply call into being a movement. Movements emerge organically from mass struggles, where people engage in purposeful actions.

But the conference sought to begin the process of bringing together on a national level the workplace reps who have the potential to themselves constitute a national shop stewards network. The use of the term "network" and not "movement" is important, because it is more appropriate to the current state of workplace union organisation.

The conference, therefore, did not attempt to take on the lofty task of recreating the shop stewards movements of the past. Whether of the first world war period or the 1950s to 1970s, the shop steward movements of these periods emerged from more solid ground of entrenched workplace bargaining and in times of rising trade union struggle.

Today, we face the task of knitting together what grass-roots organisation has survived and is still working after a period of retreat and defeat. The job here is to try to make it into more than just the sum of its parts. So, the task of the shop stewards network is to support and encourage struggle when its breaks out rather than initiate it in the first place. Once this has been achieved, we may then be in a position to try as a network to initiate struggles.

There is where the Respect-initiated Workers' Charter is likely to come unstuck. All the demands are, in one sense, correct and sensible. The demands raise necessary and important issues, but they are also too wide-ranging and ambitious to be acted upon practically.
The social forces required to secure the charter's aims unfortunately do not yet exist. Put bluntly, the aims do not match up with the available means. No amount of exhortation and pulling of emotional, left-wing heartstrings can get around this. That is why the RMT initiative more squarely hits the nail on the head.

All of this should focus our attention on best way to introduce higher demands into the union movement, as well as to how higher demands can emerge themselves from within the union movement in a more organic manner.

Different organisations of varying sizes, but all of the far left, dating from the 1970s, have presented charters of rights and action programmes to the union movement. Some of these charters and programmes have been presented in more conducive times than those of the present.

Setting aside the barren party-building aspects of some of these attempts, what they have in common is that they have not connected with the active, non-aligned trade unionists in a widespread and concrete manner.

An obvious example of when this did happen concerns the Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions (LCDTU) at the time of the killing of both the In Place of Strife white paper in 1968 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971.

This lack of subsequent substantial connection of charters and programmes is because the demands either fail to do one or other or both of the following.

First, they do not match where the mass of the union movement is at, where the demands aim to take people two or three steps, as opposed to 10 or 20 steps, on from where they are. Second, the demands have not genuinely or organically arisen in a substantial way from the mass of workers' struggle.

Although only a single but, nonetheless, high-profile strike, the Gate Gourmet action highlighted to the workers involved and to a huge swathe of others looking on that legalised solidarity action is vitally needed to make trade unionism effective.
That is why the Trade Union Freedom Bill is so appropriate. Unfortunately, we have not seen any such similar examples since.

So, because the RMT initiative is more attuned to the lived experience of workplace reps as they are now and begins from where they are, it is more likely to be successful than the Respect initiative, which may serve the better purposes of raising ideas and creating discussion.
That does not mean that the RMT initiative is guaranteed success. In itself, it is quite ambitious. Its success will depend upon a higher level of trade union workplace struggle unfolding, workplace reps broadening their horizons out of their own industry and a clutch of successful struggles, aided by solidarity support, being seen as offering a way forward.

• Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations at the University of Hertfordshire's Centre for Research in Employment Studies.

2006-10-25T17:45:00.000+01:00

Cout Rules Firefighters Cannot be forced to attend 999 Medical Emergencies on behalf of the Ambulance Service

FBU Press Release

A legal case brought by two fire authorities seeking to force firefighters to answer 999 medical emergencies on behalf of the ambulance service has been dismissed by the High Court today. The Fire Brigades Union (FBU), who were defendants in the case, welcomed the decision.
The legal case focused on whether firefighters could be required under their contracts of employment to participate in so-called “co-responder” calls. It follows the attempted introduction of co-responder schemes at Retford Fire Station in Nottinghamshire and Grantham Fire Station in Lincolnshire.

The fire authorities argued that they had the right to assign additional duties - such as co-responding - to a firefighter in line with local fire safety plans, known as Integrated Risk Management Plans (IRMP). They also claimed this had been agreed in the settlement which resolved the national fire strike in 2002/3.

But they failed to call any witnesses from the national employers who negotiated that agreement to support such a claim. They did not dispute the FBU evidence that there was no intention to agree this and that the national employers knew that.

The fire authorities argued that the FBU negotiators had done a poor job and had failed to notice the employers slipping in this duty in the small print which referred to firefighters being required to carry out first aid. The union said there was no change and that firefighters have always carried out first aid for casualties at fire and road traffic incidents they attend until the ambulance arrives.

That has always been agreed and is very different, the union said, from becoming an auxiliary ambulance service and attending purely ambulance calls which is what these fire authorities were trying to impose.

The fire authorities could not explain why a fire appliance attending an ambulance call is treated for the purpose of NHS statistics as the ambulance attending. The ambulance can attend much later - 15, 20 minutes or more after the call - and yet will be treated as having arrived within their 8 minute target if the fire appliance arrived within that time. This is despite the clear evidence that, even if Firefighters do attend within 8 minutes, lives will be lost if the ambulance does not attend a few minutes later.

The FBU made clear the employers were free to raise the issue nationally if they wanted to try and reach agreement. In that way key issues could be properly addressed such as training standards, funding and attendance targets. Documentary evidence was produced to confirm that, after delays by the national employers, national discussions were now ongoing at a ministerial advisory committee. Despite this clear evidence, these fire authorities tried to deny that there were any such discussions.

FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack: “We welcome the ruling. It’s clear these two counties jumped the gun and tried to impose co-responding without national discussions, with no proper procedures and with no UK wide standards.

Rather than being the solution co-responding as it currently operates is part of the problem. We believe it is being used to mask and potentially worsen performance problems in the Ambulance service.

Since the introduction of co-responding in Nottinghamshire, the Ambulance Service has reached the point that in some cases it now takes as long as 20 minutes for an ambulance to attend the scene of a life-threatening emergency. In Lincolnshire the Ambulance Service has deteriorated year on year following the introduction of co-responding.

Like the issue of NHS waiting lists, targets can become more important than the service actually provided. It is unacceptable that NHS targets allow the basic first aid provided under a co-responding scheme to count as the time of the ambulance service response in place of the actual ambulance response time.

There is then no target for the ambulance to get there. so the result can be a worse service but this is covered up by misleading statistics suggesting the opposite. They have tried to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, but they did not succeed with the judge.”

2006-09-14T21:22:00.000+01:00

"Putting the 'h' into hypocrisy and the triple 'd' into double standards"

Remember Amicus leading the way to a new 'super union' which was going to change the world? Below we post a link to the amicuscc web site where we read of the unusual response of Derek Simpson (the man who wants Gordon Brown crowned as New Labour supremo) to an equal pay grievance by a woman member of staff. The bad news? The five named 'comparators' have been sent a letter terminating their contract of employment. The good news? They will be offered alternative employment at a lower rate of pay! This couldn't be a means of circumventing the equal pay claim, surely? Read what the GMB organisation of Amicus staff has to say. The website reproduces the GMB leaflet explaining the case. Amongst other things they accuse Derek of breaching contract law and the Sex Discrimination Act. Aren't they lucky they work for a trade union instead of an anti-union employer.

www.amicus.cc

2006-09-11T13:12:00.000+01:00

Bolivia - Right wing walk-out from Constituent Assembly

On September 1st right the wing opposition walked out of the Constituent Assembly. Below are links which explain the situation and give an indication of the debate taking place on the left over the construction of the CA.

Right Wing Pushes Against Morales
http://www.boliviasc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=44

A rare interview with Evo Morales as he begins a profound transformation of his country
http://www.boliviasc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=44

A New Constitution for Bolivia: the History and Structure of the Constitutional Assembly
http://www.boliviasc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=44

The Rebirth of Bolivia in a Constituent Assembly: Is this what democracy looks like?
http://www.boliviasc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=44

Evo Morales and the Phallic Decolonization of the Bolivian State
http://www.boliviasc.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=159&Itemid=44

2006-09-08T12:54:00.000+01:00

New York Transit Workers Strike

Readers of SOLIDARITY will recall material we carried in the magazine about the New York Transit Workers Strike. Below is a link to an overview of the strike by Steve Downs in the US magazine Against the Current.

http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/114

2006-09-05T20:50:00.000+01:00

Merseyside Fire Fighters Strike

Below are two bulletins from the FBU in relation to the Merseyside Firefighters strike which is in opposition to job cuts. Details of the Hardship Fund are included.

September 1st
Merseyside Strike Action Solid

Merseyside STRIKE action SOLIDMerseyside members walk out in strike over massive planned cuts to the local fire serviceMerseyside fire crews walked out on strike at 10am Thursday morning in a massive show of opposition to the planned cuts to the local fire service.

Morale on the picket lines was high as off-duty members and officials from across the country – from the Highlands in Scotland to Cornwall in the South West of England, including the FBU’s national leadership – visited, showing their solidarity with Merseyside members.

At an FBU meeting in Merseyside 40 had been expected, but 500 turned up and the venue had to be changed to accommodate the additional numbers.

Local fire crews are set to strike for four days until Monday 4 September, 10.00am, and will then be striking for a further four days from 1200 midday 4 September.

The Union on Thursday repeatedly asked for talks with senior management, including twice on Radio Merseyside. But the fire authority said it was “too busy” to attend talks, although some informal talks have been pencilled in for the weekend.

As the first strike day kicked in, chief fire officer McGuirk admitted using staff from the fire authority’s personnel and finance department to provide emergency fire cover – saying that this was an acceptable move because they didn’t need to be “fully trained”.

Further cuts to firefighter posts

Enflaming the dispute, fire crews have learned that the fire authority agreed two days before the strike started - but not informed the Union - of a cut of a further 18 wholetime firefighter posts at Croxteth fire stations.

In a letter to McGuirk, FBU General Secretary Matt Wrack said the chief fire officer appeared to have “embarked on a confrontational strategy” which has “given major cause for concern.”
The Union has called for independent inquiry into significant industrial relation problems which have dogged Merseyside fire service for several years.

Members in the brigade voted 3:1 in favour of strike action over cuts they say will compromise firefighter and public safety. The strike is in protest at plans to cut 120 emergency response firefighter posts – one in ten of the workforce - 15 emergency fire control operator posts and axe four fire engines at night time. There will be fewer rescue appliances, fewer firefighters on fire engines and a longer wait for crews to arrive to all 999 emergencies.

Cuts will damage operational capabilityThe loss of one in ten fulltime firefighter posts – in addition to the 68 posts lost last year - will inevitably damage the overall operational capability of the Merseyside fire and rescue service.

Fire crews say this will clearly compromise their safety and the safety of the public.

Solidarity

Members and officials are urged to show soldarity with Merseyside members by sending messages of support, visiting picket lines while off-duty and contributing to the strike fund.

Merseyside Hardship Fund
HSBC BankSort code:40-29-28
Account number: 91320165

05 September 2006
Merseyside Fire Crews Turn Up Pressure on Fire Authority as Union Announces Eight More Days of Strike Action

Merseyside fire crews are taking eight more days of strike action. The fire authority has been given the statutory notice of the start of strike action from 10.00 on 12 September until 10.00 on 20 September.The strike is in opposition to proposed cuts which include:

Cutting 120 firefighter posts – one in ten of the workforce –in addition to the 68 posts cut last year;
Introducing a 96 hour week at some fire stations; Cutting 15 emergency fire control operator posts –one in four of the workforce Axing four fire engines at night time;
There will be fewer rescue appliances, fewer firefighters on fire engines and a longer wait for crews to arrive at all 999 emergencies.

Les Skarratts, Chair of Merseyside FBU said: “We’re happy to reach a negotiated agreement in talks. At present the talks have stalled and they will give us no dates for future meetings which is bitterly disappointing.

Merseyside fire crews, including those in emergency fire control, are absolutely determined to maintain momentum and keep up pressure on the fire authority. We are leaving senior managers in no doubt that we will have either thrashed out a deal by 12 September or the next set of strike action commences.

We have formally proposed bringing in the specialist national fire service negotiators to assist us in resolving this dispute. That is the correct procedure and they have huge experience in assisting the resolution of disputes, especially on those issues covered by national agreements and which are not only local issues.

Our morale is high, our determination to stop savage cuts across the Merseyside fire and rescue service is unwavering. We have tremendous support from a public which has rumbled managers who claim they can improve a public service by cutting it. The public know we’re not doing this because we want more money or better conditions. It’s not about what’s in it for us, it’s because we know these cuts are wrong and will impact on our safety and public safety.”

2006-08-23T18:35:00.000+01:00

Pensioner Wins GP Privatisation Battle At Court of Appeal

Pam Smith has today won her appeal to prevent a US healthcare corporation from running a GP surgery in Derbyshire. Lord Justices Keene and May quashed the selection of United Health Europe the British arm of Americas biggest healthcare corporation to run the practice, and ordered North Eastern Derbyshire primary care trust to start the tendering process from scratch. They also awarded Pam Smith 100 per cent of the costs.

The decision is a stunning victory for a pensioner who dared to stand up to the might of the government, the NHS and a multi-national corporation. It is a blow for the governments reform programme of bringing in private companies to run GP services, and may discourage other private companies from involvement in the scheme.

The case provides a precedent for other communities facing similar situations. It has established that patients have a legal right to be involved and consulted on plans for changes. In a number of other cases, communities have been opposed to the notion of profit-making companies running their family doctor surgeries.

Pam Smith said: This just shows what people power can do. It was a real case of David and Goliath. I feel like Im on a high. I would love to be a fly on Patricia Hewitts wall now she keeps saying patients have a choice; well weve made our choice. United Health would only have taken profits. We will keep our NHS public, not private thats what makes Britain unique.

Alex Nunns of Keep Our NHS Public said: This is a complete and total victory, and a vindication for Pam and her community, who have tirelessly fought against their GP surgery being handed over to a giant American corporation. It is also a model for other communities having this forced on them in the governments drive to privatise the NHS. Thanks to Pam, they now have a clear legal right to be heard.

People are rightly suspicious of profit-making companies taking over their family doctor surgeries. They fear that the standard of care will decline, and that shareholders will be put before patients. If patient choice is to mean anything at all, the NHS must listen to these concerns, and stop imposing the private sector on unwilling communities.

CONTACTS:
Alex Nunns 07763 607 528, konp.press@virgin.net
Pam Smith 01623 743 460
Elizabeth Barrett (Derbyshire GP, Robin Hood KONP) 07779 082 037
Richard Stein (Pam Smiths lawyer) 02076501243

NOTES:
1. North-Eastern Derbyshire Primary Care Trust chose UnitedHealth Europe as its preferred bidder to run the Creswell Primary Care Centre in December last year. It provoked uproar among the local community especially in the village of Langwith, which has a branch of the Creswell centre who accused the PCT of privatising their GP service against their wishes. At a judicial review in June, a judge ruled that the PCT did have an obligation to consult the community, meaning it had acted unlawfully. However, he ruled against Pam Smith on the technicality that she should have taken an alternative remedy before bringing a judicial review. In recognition of that fact that on the main issues she was successful, the judge awarded Smith 75% of the costs.

2. Upon winning the appeal, Pam Smith was awarded 100% of the costs of both hearings. The judges found that the alternative remedy of the patients forum was not appropriate since is it not in a position to judge law and has no real power over the PCT. The appeal court judges also ruled that the original judge, Mr Justice Collins, was wrong to say that the selection of United Health would have been the same even if the PCT had consulted.

3. The Court of Appeal has quashed the selection of UnitedHealth Europe and ordered the tender to be reopened. The PCT is required to involve and consult the local community on its plans. This has serious implications for government policy. Januarys health white paper set out plans to open up primary care to the market by encouraging private companies to run GP surgeries and allowing them control of commissioning budgets. But in a number of areas the policy has met opposition from patients.

4. The Department of Health viewed the case so seriously it intervened in the proceedings, arguing against its own rhetoric of patient choice that there was no need to consult the community. Alex NunnsInformation OfficerKeep Our NHS Public 07763 607528 konp.press@virgin.net

www.keepournhspublic.com

2006-08-20T15:38:00.000+01:00

WAC Israel, visit to Britain?

Last Saturday Dave Chapple (Secretary Bridgwater TUC) and myself met Asaf Adiv and Hadas Lahav from the Israeli Workers Advice Center. They were visiting Britain for a short holiday. We had the opportunity to discuss the current war situation as well as the development of WAC's work. It participated in the recent demonstration in Tel Avid against Israel's attack on Lebanon.

It held its AGM recently in Tel Aviv (read WAC-MAAN General Meeting calls for a new trade-union initiative and an end to the war on Lebanon )

WAC is interested in visiting trades unionists in Britain, possibly in the Spring of next year, to explain their work and to develop links. We will be writing to organisations supporting SOLIDARITY (and magazine subscribers), to ask if they would sponsor a visit and to pledge a financial contribution towards the cost. The length of such a visit and itinerary will obviously depend upon the amount of money we are able to raise.

We will also be approaching national trades unions which WAC would obviously be interested in meeting.

As you may well know from material in previous issues of SOLIDARITY, WAC brings together Israeli Jews and Arabs as equals in the effort of developing a new trade union initiative. Whilst its work has tended to be concentrated amongst the Arab Israeli population, especially in the construction industry, it seeks to build a class movement which unites Jewish and Arab Israeli workers. This is no easy task given the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. However, they have recently carried out work in relation to the Wisconsin plan (which forces unemployed to work for their social security) which impacts on both Arabs and Jews. They have also been supporting Jewish workers sacked by Israeli Educational TV, for whom the Histadrut, the official trade union did nothing. (See Against the Revolving Door at Israel’s Eucational TV)

Please let us know if you think your union branch or organisation would be likely to sponsor a visit.

For more information visit WAC's web site.

2006-07-21T12:41:00.000+01:00

TUC win 'Pole tax' reform for Polish workers over-paying tax

An important victory here which indicates the benefits of union membership for migrant workers and should help in the unionisation campaign. What follows is a TUC statement.

The TUC today (Thursday) welcomed a major victory for Polish workers in Britain who have been paying double tax on their earnings. A campaign by the TUC South West region has led to a treaty being signed today between the Polish and UK Governments that will make sure Polish workers do not pay both tax in the UK and high level tax on the same earnings when they return to Poland. Thanks to this treaty, UK tax paid will count against Polish tax.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber is visiting the Polish church in Bristol today where the problem was first raised with the TUC by the Polish support group, Polski Bristol. The South West TUC took up the campaign with Dawn Primarolo, Bristol South MP and Paymaster General, highlighting to the Minister the complicated tax rules and the fact that workers in other countries such as Ireland get better tax treatment. The Government has subsequently reached an agreement that will benefit thousands of Polish workers employed in the UK. Dawn Primorolo has signed the treaty today on behalf of the British Government

Speaking at the Polish church in Bristol this evening, Brendan Barber will say: 'Unions, campaigners and community groups in Bristol have worked together to secure an important victory for thousands of Polish workers across the whole country and end this unjust 'Pole tax'. The Government rightly recognises the value that Polish workers add to the UK economy and has responded quickly to union concerns that they were not being treated fairly.'

Julia Verne , Polski Bristol, said: 'This is great news for Polish workers who have been penalised with unfair tax demands when they go home. The current double tax system doesn't take into account the high cost of living in the UK and is especially punitive to workers on low pay. The system means that workers are left with very little disposable income. When we first raised this issue, the church was packed with workers who wanted to know why they faced double tax. This treaty is great news and we are indebted to the TUC for helping us tackle this issue.'

Nigel Costley, South West TUC Regional Secretary, said:'Unions are giving on-the-ground support to Polish workers to make sure they are treated properly at work but we've proved we can also tackle bigger problems. I didn't realise that they had to pay double tax and was pleased to help them campaign for reform. Dawn Primarolo has been very quick to respond to this issue and make the system fairer for workers in her own constituency and across the country.'

2006-07-20T09:33:00.000+01:00

Stop this destructive war! Workers on all sides are paying the price!

An Israeli Workers Advice Center statement on Israeli attack on Lebanon.

Since July 12, Israel has been carrying out a disproportionate and murderous war in Lebanon . It has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, including whole families. It has destroyed much of the infrastructure in the south, creating a humanitarian disaster. Those who suffer most are the workers and the poor. At the same time, the IDF continues to pummel Gaza , here too killing innocent civilians. The goal behind all this destruction is to restore the country's power of deterrence. It needs this power so that it can continue to behave unilaterally––without concessions to the Palestinians or the Syrians.

But Israel too, in the present war, has suffered civilian casualties, both dead and wounded, among the half million or more who live in the Jewish and Arab localities of the north.

The working classes on all sides in the conflict have nothing to gain from this war, no matter what its outcome.

Concerning the Palestinian and Lebanese militias, WAC, which represents the progressive Arab and Jewish workers in Israel , sees no justification for their military actions, which they undertook without consulting their peoples, and which gave Israel a much-desired pretext for showing off its might while exploiting divisions within the Arab camp.

We are concerned about the passive way in which the international community accepts the IDF's exaggerated use of force. We call on political parties and workers' organizations, including the trade unions of the world, to demand a cease fire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces back to the international border.

Israel justifies its massive destruction by claiming that it was attacked first. But if it were truly interested in peace, it could have reached a treaty years ago with Syria , with Lebanon , and, most importantly, with the Palestinian people. All it would have needed to do would have been to withdraw from the areas it conquered in 1967 and recognize the legitimate rights of those peoples.

Without such a comprehensive Israeli withdrawal, there will be neither peace nor stability.

It is time to stop the fighting and begin negotiations on the basis of principles that will guarantee the independence and development of all the peoples in the region.

Visit: www.workersadvicecenter.org

2006-06-27T13:25:00.000+01:00

CWU to Ballot for Strike Action

The Communication Workers Union has agreed to hold a ballot for industrial action with Royal Mail workers.

• Notice will be issued to Royal Mail on Monday July 3.
• Ballot papers will be despatched to CWU members from Monday July 10.
• Ballot will close Monday July 31.
• Ballot affects 136,000 CWU members.

Notice to the employer has been set to demonstrate the union’s determination to reach an acceptable negotiated agreement. The dispute covers Royal Mail’s imposition of pay and Royal Mail’s future plans, including 40,000 job losses and changes to ways of working.

General Secretary Billy Hayes said: “Imposing an un-agreed pay rise was always going to create conflict. This is a serious decision, but the union has provided a window of a week for Royal Mail to use their energies to reach a settlement with our negotiating team.”

Dave Ward, Deputy General Secretary, said: “Royal Mail should be under no illusion that the CWU is prepared to take decisive action to defend the pay and future job security of our members. We have allowed 4 weeks so far to reach agreement since our annual conference decision and now we are giving a further week. I would suggest that Royal Mail seize this opportunity and work hard to reach an acceptable agreement or a strike ballot will take place.”

2006-06-22T18:12:00.000+01:00

Five day strike by GMB ASDA members

GMB reps meeting in Manchester today have voted to implement a five day strike against ASDA/Walmart. Read the GMB press release below.

GMB MEMBERS IN ASDA WAL-MART TO STRIKE FOR 5 DAYS FROM JUNE 30TH TO 4TH JULY (INDEPENDENCE DAY)

GMB Shop Stewards National Council agree programme of industrial action including an initial period of 5 consecutive days strike to be followed by comprehensive further industrial action
22 Jun 2006

GMB Shop Stewards National Council meeting in Manchester today agreed a comprehensive programme of industrial action in Asda Wal-Mart's 20 distribution depots to secure their objectives. From 00.01 Friday 30th June until 23.59 Tuesday 4th July (Independence Day) there will be a complete withdrawal of labour by all GMB members in all Asda Wal-Mart depots. This will be followed by a further comprehensive programme of industrial action.

GMB members working in Asda Wal-Mart's 20 distribution depots across the country voted by 3 to 1 (74.1% in favour) to take strike action in support of their outstanding claims with the company. They also voted by an even bigger margin of more than 4 to 1 for industrial action short of a strike to secure their objectives.

GMB members who will take part in the industrial action work as HGV drivers and warehouse picker and loaders at Asda Wal-Mart 20 distribution depots including Bedford, Chepstow, Dartford, Didcot, Erith, Falkirk, Grangemouth, Ince George in Wigan, Lymedale Staffordshire, Lutterworth in Leicestershire, Portbury in Bristol, Skelmersdale, Teesport, ADC Wigan, Wakefield and Washington. They move 30,000 tonnes per day of ambient, fresh, chilled and frozen produce from 20 distribution depots to 300 Asda Wal-Mart Stores around the country.

GMB members in Asda Wal-Mart's distribution depots want to see the establishment of proper national bargaining structures between the company and GMB covering pay, conditions and union facilities in all 20 distribution depots.

Once established the first thing GMB members employed in the depots want is an agreement, via the new national negotiating structures, that Asda Wal-Mart pay the unpaid 2005 bonus of £300 per worker. The second issue GMB members in the depots want dealt with via the new national negotiating structures is an end to the unilateral introduction of new technology leading to higher work rates in the depots which health and safety experts say will seriously injury GMB members over a long period of time. (See Note 5). GMB members want an agreement that safe work rates are established by a panel of independent experts.

Phil Davies, GMB National Secretary said, "GMB members know full well that Asda Wal-Mart are gearing up to try to break this strike. This decision today to set a comprehensive programme of industrial action starting with the 5 days stoppage shows that GMB members are determined to win national collective bargaining rights which are common across British industry.

There appears to be a clear clash of cultures between the way workers do business in Britain and the way Wal-Mart does business. It is significant that the strike dates set by the Shop Stewards covers Independence Day. GMB members in Asda Wal-Mart want independence from the anti-trade union tactics of Wal-Mart worldwide.

GMB members spoke decisively yesterday. The Shop Stewards decision today shows they are prepared to follow it up with decisive action.

GMB will also step up the campaign against the agencies that we know are collaborating with Asda Wal-Mart to break this strike and GMB will use the full force of the law against them."

Ends

Contact: GMB Press Office: Steve Pryle on 07921 289880 or Rose Conroy on 07974 251823.

2006-06-13T11:08:00.000+01:00

Nuclear power, environmental crisis and the trades unions

Having opposed building new nuclear power plants in its White Paper in 2003 the government has launched a new energy review which can have no other purpose than to overturn the government's previous position. The suspicion that the Great Leader had already decided that a new generation of nuclear power plants is necessary was confirmed by his recent speech to the CBI which exposed the bogus nature of the 'review' process. There is little support for such a move, yet ironically, the major trades unions are appealing to the government to follow this course. Martin Wicks examines the issue of nuclear energy and the policy of the unions. (From the latest issue of SOLIDARITY)

Blair's speech to the CBI has created a furore, and not only amongst those who are inveterate opponents of nuclear energy. The speech not only pre-empted the review, it was designed to silence opposition within the Cabinet. Apparently there will be no white paper to decide on a new generation of nuclear power plants since this would serve as a focus for opposition.

In his speech Blair said:

"Essentially, the twin pressures of climate change and energy security are raising energy policy to the top of the agenda in the UK and around the world. The facts are stark. By 2025, if current policy is unchanged there will be a dramatic gap on our targets to reduce CO2 emissions, we will become heavily dependent on gas and at the same time move from being 80% to 90% self-reliant in gas to 80% to 90% dependent on foreign imports, mostly from the Middle East, and Africa and Russia.

These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency, engaging both business and consumers, back on the agenda with a vengeance. If we don't take these long-term decisions now we will be committing a serious dereliction of our duty to the future of this country."

Blair assembles facts to justify a pre-determined argument. He does not examine the facts in order to come to a conclusion. There is a fundamental contradiction which underlies his position. His government has long supported a liberalised energy market. There is nothing to stop 'the market' delivering new nuclear power stations now; except the risk and the “eye-wateringly large costs” (a Treasury prediction according to the Guardian).

The current market structure has failed

But if the market works, asked the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, why is a government 'decision' necessary in the first place?

“…in the context of the Government's faith in liberalised market it is unclear what any 'decision' or 'decision on nuclear' would amount to. We put this point repeatedly to the Secretary of State, yet he was unable to offer any explanation. The real issue facing the government is in fact whether the current structure of the liberalised market and policy framework will deliver sufficient investment in low-carbon forms of generation in a timely manner. Yet the consultation document does not address this adequately perhaps because to do so would be tantamount to admitting that the current market structure has failed.”
“Keeping the lights on: Nuclear, Renewables and Climate Change”. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report.

Blair's government will not admit that the privatised energy market is fundamentally flawed, since this would bring its 'free market' ideological pack of cards crashing down. Already, in 2002 the government was obliged to rescue the privatised nuclear company British Energy at a cost of billions to the taxpayer (including decommissioning it could add up to £12 billion).

Today there is little support for a new generation of nuclear plants. The Sustainable Development Commission Report said that “nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply”. There is “no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present.” The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee EAC) is likewise opposed, supporting the emphasis of the 2003 White Paper on energy efficiency and renewables as cornerstones of future energy policy. In it's report it says:

“Over the next ten years, nuclear power cannot contribute either to the need for more generating capacity or to carbon reductions as it simply could not be built in time.”

The Secretary of State for Energy has admitted that it might take from 15 to 17 years before a new nuclear power station could become operational.

The 'generating gap'

But what about the energy gap which is predicted? The EAC has estimated that by 2016 between 15 and 20GW of electricity generating plant will be decommissioned; nearly a quarter of total UK generating capacity. 8GW of nuclear capacity is scheduled to close by 2014, and by 2023, only Sizewell B will be operational.

The government's own energy White Paper in 2003 endorsed the view of its Performance and Innovation Unit that new gas-fired plant, renewables and energy efficiency measures could make up for the potential 'generating gap'.

The very idea of insufficient energy accepts as a given that energy use will remain at current levels. It fails to address the fact that the capitalist system is a system of phenomenal waste, because production and energy use is determined by the narrow interests of 'efficiency', measured by the balance sheet and profit levels.

The failure of the Blair government to subsidise low-carbon generating technologies, which are currently more expensive than gas or coal, results from its ideological free market fundamentalism. The EAC poses the question:

“If the government does indeed make a decision on nuclear, it is unclear why it should not also come to a decision on off-shore wind, marine, or micro-CHP, let alone the many possible measures to support energy efficiency.”

The acceptance in the 2003 White Paper of the possibility of reductions in energy use has been abandoned, partly because state intervention has the unacceptable stench of 'Old Labour', and partly because it contradict with the logic of capitalist production, which is heresy for New Labour.

'Environmental sustainability'

Environmental sustainability is a much used phrase in all manner of government documents. But such an aim is impossible without serious action to stop the waste of resources which results from a system in which 'growth' is seen as a positive thing irrespective of its social and environmental consequences. As Ken Livingstone pointed out in a Guardian article, up to two thirds of electricity is wasted because of the centralised nature of production, and its transmission over long distances. The EAC report identifies the need for 'distribution generation' (small scale generation on a local basis at the point of demand) rather than the wasteful national grid system. Distributed generation offers big improvements in efficiency, particularly in the case of 'combined heat and power'.

Electricity losses on the UK grid system are estimated on average at around 10%, whilst the efficiency of coal power stations can be as low as 35%. If both the electricity and the heat load can be utilised, efficiencies of more than 90% can be achieved. It is estimated that if half of the domestic central heating boilers in the UK were replaced by micro-CHP units, by 2020 the total generating capacity would amount to 13GW, delivering at peak winter periods as much as the current nuclear power stations.

The centralised distribution networks of all manner of service industries provide 'economies of scale' for the big companies. But the cost of these centralised systems is vast numbers of heavy goods vehicles criss-crossing the country, pouring out pollutants and burning up oil, taking, for example food to be processed at one end of the country, only to return from whence it came. This may be 'efficient' from the standpoint of the balance sheet of the companies, but it is entirely irrational and inefficient given its social, health and environmental impact.

Shift from road to rail?

The EAC criticises the government for failing to clarify the nature of its current review. If it is supposed to be a wider debate (rather than one narrowly focused on electricity production) it would need to address all aspects of energy consumption, in particular transport and the domestic sector, in both of which energy consumption is significantly increasing “due to the fact that government policies diametrically opposed to the target of 60% carbon reduction by 2050”, set out in the Energy White Paper. This is apparent when you consider the wreckage of its transport policy.

Of all the failures of the Blair government, probably one of the greatest is in relation to transport. It is impossible to tackle the environmental crisis without halting and reversing the growth in road transport. In the early days of the current government John Prescott made the statement that if there had been no shift from road to rail within five years then he would have failed in his job. This shift was said to be necessary to cut emissions which contributed to global warming. When the five years was up and Prescott was reminded of his comments he denied them, though they were a matter of record. The government's transport strategy was abandoned and they have since accepted there will be an increase in the number of cars on the road.

Whilst they were forced to close down Railtrack as a share trading company, the government refused to re-nationalise the industry, partly for ideological reasons (they are free market fundamentalists) and partly because Brown does not want the company's debt added to his public balance sheet. Even worse the Department for Transport has now issued a timetable for the railways which institutes cuts in services which can only have the impact of driving people back on the road. In rural areas in particular the cuts are considerable even though, to take parts of the South West, local service use has increased by up 40% in the last five years. The framework timetables were determined purely in order to cut the level of subsidy.

The rail unions and socialists have long argued that the only way to get more people to transfer from road to rail is to provide cheap and reliable services. But the refusal of the government to end the disastrous experiment of rail privatisation has meant that private companies are leeching money out of the system and pushing prices up to such an extent that not many people can afford the price of tickets. That the number of journeys has increased is a reflection of the increasing level of congestion on roads. Nationally, the 1 billion passenger journey mark has been passed for the first time in 50 years. Despite this the government has accepted that they can do nothing to halt the increase in car numbers.

The nuclear record

Successive studies by British governments in 1989, 1995 and 2002 all came to the conclusion that in a liberalised electricity market, electric utilities will not build nuclear power plants without government subsidies and guarantees capping costs. Even when Thatcher decided on a new round of building, only one plant, Sizewell B was built. In 1989 when the electricity industry was being privatised, the nuclear plants were not attractive to private investors, and the government was forced to withdraw them from sale and had to create two publicly owned companies, Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, to own and operate them. Tory Energy Minister of the time, John Wakeham bemoaned the fact that “unprecedented guarantees” were being sought. “I am not willing to underwrite the private sector in this way.” Good God, this is the 'free market'.

The 1995 review led to the privatisation of the more modern plants, in a new company British Energy. However, the review found no economic case for new plants. British Energy proposed the building of new plants to replace the aging Magnox ones, but insisted these would not be feasible without government subsidy. The 2003 review likewise concluded that new build was not economic.

Poor operational performance

The history of civil nuclear power in the UK has been characterised (in the words of the EAC) by “extensive government subsidies, time and cost overruns, and poor operational performance”. In the case of Dungeness B it took 24 years from the start of construction to commercial operation and the plant has only operated on average at 37% of its planned generating capacity since then. In the case of the latest one, Sizewell B, the UK's only pressurised water reactor, construction costs escalated form £1.8 billion to over £3 billion, whilst generating costs have been estimated at around twice the current cost of electricity from gas or coal.

Much has been said about the so-called generation 3 plants being much more efficient. But no western country has yet built one, and there is nothing to say that technological difficulties will not be encountered. The EAC says:

“The past history of the nuclear industry gives little confidence about the timescales and costs of new build. This does not mean that a new generation of nuclear power stations cannot be built to time and cost, but it does mean that investors have little basis for assessing the risks involved and may, therefore, require a higher rate of return.”

'Clean fuel'

Any cursory investigation of the history of the industry and its costs provides sufficient reason for opposing a new generation of plants. To assert as some do that nuclear power is “clean” is ridiculous. An accident at a nuclear power plant has the potential to have catastrophic consequences as Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States have shown. Britain has had its own consequences of accidents at Winscale (now Sellafield) and even the Irish government has been pushed to challenge the continued production at Sellafield as a result of concentrated clusters of cancers in Ireland, downwind from the plant. Supporters of new build argue that the new generation is much safer, but no industry can be made accident proof, least of all nuclear power. Even worse, when the industry is privately owned, with the profit motive at its heart, the danger of accidents is even greater.

Information recently gained by a Liberal Democrat MP from Minister Malcolm Wicks indicates 57 accidents at nuclear plants since this government came to office. They ranged from radiation leaks and machinery failure to contamination of ground water and employees' clothes, and a fire. Eleven were serious enough to be classed as an "incident" or "serious incident" on international nuclear measures.

Three incidents were recorded last year, all at Sellafield, Cumbria, including a large leak of highly radioactive nuclear fuel which forced the closure of the Thorp reprocessing plant in April. High radiation was also detected in the Hales storage plant and three staff were contaminated while carrying out maintenance.

For all the talk of terrorism by Blair the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants does not seem to be on his radar. Calculations produced by the Oxford Research Group suggest that an attack on the high level waste tanks at Sellafield would dwarf the scale of the Chernobyl accident.

Decommissioning

Then there is the cost of decommissioning. The latest estimated cost from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is £70 billion. A new generation would drive the cost up. As it is the problem of storage of nuclear waste has yet to be resolved. No community wants a nuclear dump on its doorstep. The problem has yet to be resolved anywhere in the world. Even in the USA no long term dump has yet been built. New build would create more waste to be dealt with.

Unions to the rescue?

Ironically, among the few supporters of building a new generation of nuclear plants, we find some of the country's major trades unions. Whilst their support was once pragmatic, based on the fact that they had members in the industry, they have now picked up on the argument supported by a very small number of erstwhile environmentalists, such as the Gaia theorist James Lovelock, that nuclear power will be necessary to tackle global warning. In the case of Amicus it approaches the question from the standpoint of energy prices; the need to cut prices so that British business can 'compete successfully' in the global market. Amicus appears to believe that regulation of the market can produce the goods.

“The market alone is unable to deliver a reliable, efficient and secure supply of energy. The Government must set a broad framework with the necessary fiscal and policy regimes to allow the market to deliver (our emphasis) and to ensure the security of supply.”

In the case of the GMB, National Officer Gary Smith said:

"GMB is campaigning for a new generation of nuclear power stations on existing sites. This will improve the UK's security of energy supply and preserve our nuclear technology industry. It should also maintain existing jobs and in the longer term create new ones. However, GMB believes it is vital that expenditure on the new nuclear programme is not at the expense of investment in other equally important energy sources. The current level of investment in renewables, bio-fuels and micro generation must be maintained."

The GMB, at least expressed its concern over private ownership of nuclear energy. In March it responded to the proposed privatisation of British Nuclear Group by raising the prospect of a 'Railtrack in the nuclear industry'. The day after Blair's speech it said:

"GMB consider that nuclear power has an important role to play as part of a balanced energy policy. However GMB do not wish to see a 'railtrack' in the nuclear industry. The public will only be convinced that the safety concerns - that rightly arise - will be dealt with properly if the industry is in public hands and properly accountable to the public. Also GMB consider that energy matters are too important to be regulated by a quango. The government itself must take this role and be answerable to parliament for it."

Both the GMB and Amicus talk about a 'balanced' energy policy. But they do not challenge the idea that there will be a 'gap' in provision which is one of the primary reasons being given for the supposed need for new nuclear power stations. The question of the energy crisis cannot be analysed in isolation from the of the context of the environmental crisis with its origins in the logic of capitalism; the constant war for market share, increased 'productivity' and profit levels.

Conclusions

It is abundantly clear that there can be no new building of nuclear power plants without either government subsidy or a government commitment on prices (making the consumer pay higher prices). The government has said that there will be no public money for such investment. However, it will have to choose between accepting that there will be no new generation of plants, or it will have to decide to throw public money at the private companies to induce them to take the risk of 'generation 3' with virtually no experience to draw on.

The trades unions, instead of offering support for a new generation of nuclear power stations should be challenging the government's faith in liberalisation. A 'decision' on nuclear power should not be based on a technical debate which accepts the current economic framework. If even the EAC, not peopled with revolutionaries, can see the possibility of significant reductions in energy consumption, then why can't the trades unions?

The 'rules' of the market do not need to be followed. The government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela has given oil to impoverished countries in the Caribbean at below market rates. It has exchanged oil with Cuba in return for doctors to provide medical services to the Venezuelan poor. In our own experience the Atlee government did not accept that health care had to be organised as a saleable commodity, available only to those who could purchase it.

A political and ideological leap, however, is necessary. Tackling the environmental crisis will not be done by 'market mechanisms'. These have recently been subject to ridicule in the case of 'credits' to pollute which have apparently been dished out a bit too liberally, much to the amusement of the polluters in chief in Washington.

A political struggle within the unions to abandon their support for a new generation of nuclear power plants is an important part of the struggle to radicalise them. It would be a political disaster of the first magnitude if the trades unions found themselves in the camp of the Blair government, in opposition to the environmental movements, and especially the radicalised young people who should be in the unions, but often tend to see them as self-interested conservative organisations supporting a neo-liberal government.

The Amicus position especially epitomises the idea of 'social partnership' in which the unions are in alliance with British business in order to 'succeed' in the cut-throat global marketplace. Such a position is one of complete prostration before the logic and rules of an economic system which wastes resources and lives on an unprecedented historical scale.

Supporting new nuclear power stations would be a step back for the unions, effectively supporting amongst other things large subsidies for big business at a great social cost for workers across the world. Socialists and opponents of this organised system of waste must fight to break the unions from their national perspective towards alliances with workers across the world and movements of the oppressed and impoverished, fighting against the economic, social, environmental and political consequences of an economic system which threatens an environmental and social catastrophe. New nuclear power plants would add to the danger and to the criminal waste of resources.

2006-05-23T20:15:00.000+01:00

Defend Council Housing Conference launches Open Letter to Tony Blair

A DCH conference on May 22nd has agreed to step up the pressure on the government by launching an open letter to Tony Blair demanding the right for direct investment in Council Housing.
Tenants, trade unionists and councillors from across the UK met at the TUC in London for the DCH national conference on May 22. The conference launched a new Open Letter (http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/DCHOpenLetterMay2006.pdf ) to Tony Blair as a focus to unite all those demanding the 'Fourth Option' to provide a long term secure future for council housing. The 'Fourth Option' directly benefits areas retaining council housing, those in ALMOs opposed to two-stage privatisation and those facing transfer, PFI or ALMO in the coming year.

Jack Dromey reported to the conference that the Labour Party working group to address the 'Fourth Option' motion passed at their September conference was due to meet for the first time.

Download copies of the open letter to use in your area – get tenants, trade unionists, councillors and MPs to sign. Put motions through tenants and trade union organisations supporting the open letter, get leading tenants and union reps and councillors to write a letter to the local press and help get the open letter circulated as widely as possible.

The resolution passed at the Conference can be downloaded from: http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/dch/resources/dchConfMay2006Resolution.pdf

Report from the Conference

Council tenants from across the country met with councillors and trade union delegates attending the DCH national conference at TUC Congress House in London. 42 areas were represented.

The plenary session, chaired by Alan Walter heard from Michael Meacher MP, Jack Dromey, deputy general secretary T&G; Reg Edwards, Milton Keynes councillor; David Eggmore, UNISON London Local Government; Mike Tansey, Sunderland councillor and Eileen Short, from Tower Hamlets. Austin Mitchell MP on a Public Account delegation to US sent apologies along with Jenni Morrow, secretary Scottish Tenants Organisation.

Delegates split into four workshops. Janet Sillett from the Local Government Information Unit explained how the 'fourth option' can be funded and answered questions. Dexter Whitfield from the Centre for Public Services and Paul Burnham, a tenant involved in Haringey DCH, lead off a discussion on the 'Future of ALMOs'. Eileen Short introduced 'Organising Effective Local Campaigns' and Lesley Carty briefed delegates on the Case Against Transfer.

Jack Dromey, T&G deputy general secretary, informed delegates that the Labour Party NEC working group set up to address the terms of the 2005 conference decision was finally going to meet: "two years running at the Labour Party conference there were overwhelming votes in favour of the 'fourth option' and they were until January of this year simply ignored by government and that's absolutely wrong."

"I must say that as well as the campaign for the 'fourth option' that I also think that we need a second string to our bow and that's councils once again being able to engage in new build. In 1970 there were 172,000 council homes built. By 2001 councils built 487 council homes. In the same year RSLs they built only 22,000. So at a time when the trend is for more people wanting houses what we have got is a decline in social housing and at the heart of that is councils not being able to engage in new build.

But crucially at the next stages we need the twin objectives of on the one hand a free choice for tenants and that must mean a wider range of options open to councils and if tenants vote to stay with their council why should the council not have the resources to renovate council homes. And on the other hand because we need many more units of accommodation councils should be free once again be able to engage in new build with the support of government.

Now today is very well timed because it happens that we have finally have got started tomorrow, Tuesday, the debate within the party around the future options of the councils, including the fourth option and also councils once again engaging in new build. I have to say by the way that in January of this year that was agreed and here we are almost at the end of May but I raised very strongly ten days ago with the party secretary saying that look we can't have the situation where two years running we ignore decisions then at last you agree to enter into a debate and then we wait the best part of five months and bugger all happens.

I think we conditioned the thinking and that debate will commence tomorrow. I don't want to mislead. I wish that I could say today that we are going to be able to quickly make the kind of progress that we would like to see. But I tell you this. The door is open and it's in our hands at the next stages as to how this progress is made. What's been said is that there will be a process over the next eighteen months, leading up to the next comprehensive spending review, with housing a central issue within that, around those twin issues of councils being able to build and councils being able to renovate their housing stock.

I suspect that you like me will take the same view which is we are not going to wait for eighteen month for an outcome. And that then leads on to how we conduct ourselves at the next stages."

I think it is disrespectful for tenants to say to tenants that you can have any choice provide that it is not the choice you want.

You can have the best arguments in the world but to break through what you need is overwhelming community and political pressure and from within the party pressure on government for a change of policy. That means therefore that all of us here today have got a very important role to play. Tenant activists at the sharp end working together with trade unionists and others. MPs like Micheal and Austin. A lot of good councillors who have bravely spoken out on this issue. Working together with us in the trade unions at national level so that we do is win the argument but also win then that change of policy. I am confident, like Michael, that we can do it. I applaud the work that you have done thus far and at the next stages, I'll tell you what, us having forced that door, it's not just people like me - it's all of us together, all of us together - having forced that door open in government let's go through that door and win what tenants deserve and that is a genuine choice for the future and councils once again engaging in new build."

Michael Meacher MP, a member of the House of Commons Council Housing group supporting the campaign, criticised Ministers for saying:

"You can’t have money for investment in repairs and improvements unless you privatise, go to a housing association or to an ALMO. This is one of the great scandals of our time. Just look at the government’s own arguments. Well the government says they believe in real choice. ..Why can’t we choose to stay with our local authority and receive the same funding for council housing.

The government says that it believes in transparency and fairness. So do we all. How do they justify siphoning off this £2b a year in housing revenue account and right to buy receipts. How do you justify prohibiting councils from using their own rental income and the value of their own housing stock in order to support borrowing to fund housing improvements..."

Alan Walter, DCH chair, summed up where the campaign has got to:

"We’ve build an unprecedented alliance of tenants, trade unions, councillors and MPs. We’ve won the argument almost everywhere except in the Cabinet.

The government has come under sustained pressure in the last year, including: evidence from the House of Commons Council Housing group (May 2005); the Audit Commission call for a 'review of housing finance (June 2005); 98 local authorities opting for stock retention (July 2005); the almost unanimous vote at the Labour Party conference (Sept 2005); the DCH Lobby of Parliament (Feb 2006), 144 MPs signing the current Early Day Motion and a growing proportion of NO votes including Sedgefield, Tower Hamlets, West Lancs, Waverley, Edinburgh, Selby, Mid-Devon, Cannock Chase and Waveney.

Our job now is to unite all those in the 98 authorities retaining their council homes, the 50 odd councils with ALMOs who don’t want the second stage of privatisation and help those facing new privatisation proposals to see the threat off in their area.

We need to take the open letter to Blair onto every council estate, get trade unionists signing up at work and ask every elected councillor to sign too. Ministers need to realise that come September, when the Labour Party conference meets again, the spotlight will be on whether they are capable of listening and respond to the overwhelming demand that they deliver on improving all our council homes and estates."

1. Help get the open letter circulated as widely as possible
2. Download copies of the campaign open letter to use in your area
3. Get tenants, trade unionists, councillors and MPs to sign
4. Put motions through tenants and trade union organisations supporting the open letter
5. Ask leading tenants and union reps and councillors to write a letter to the local press urging others to sign too

2006-05-09T18:43:00.000+01:00

Appeal for solidarity against victimisation

Gill Whittaker, PCS activist and President of Chesterfield TUC is under threat of vicitimsation. Her union branch is calling on trades unionists to write to management in support.

RE: TU Victimisation of Branch Secretary Gill Whittaker PCS

Gill Whittaker has been the subject of victimisation by her employer the Department of Work & Pensions. Gill has been accused of intimidating strike breakers as they cross a lawful & peaceful picket line.

Gill has never acted in anyway that would be deemed illegal whilst on picket duty but her employer and District manager Keith Burn have taken it upon themselves to lodge disciplinary charges against Gill, so that she would stop being an effective Trade Union Activist.

Gill has been at the forefront of our campaigns in our branch and is also a well recognized individual within the community in Chesterfield due to her role as President of Chesterfield & District TUC and throughout the rest of Derbyshire and the Midlands, not only in our own union but in the wider trade union movement.

Quite clearly this is an attack on an activist within the trade union movement and we are mounting a campaign to stop her management from taking this action, already they have failed to produce evidence for Gill in relation to the Data Protection Act by purposely “sitting” on the request and as at the time of writing this letter we are at 80 days and still no information has been provided.

The DWP is trying to get rid of activists like Gill and we believe that if Gill is disciplined for these actions they will not stop at coming after other reps in the DWP.

We are calling on trade union activists everywhere to help us in this campaign. Attached is a draft letter addressed to the District manager responsible for bringing these allegations we are urging you to distribute the letters amongst your members and ask them to write to Mr. Burn, please feel free to alter the letter. Pressure needs to be forced onto the DWP to back down, already we have had one very successful public meeting in Chesterfield and more are planned for Derby City.

We need more reps and activists like Gill not less so if you believe in the phrase ‘an attack on one is attack on all’ please help in the campaign in any way that you can.

Simon Boulton
DWP PCS Derbyshire Branch Chair

DRAFT OF LETTER

Organisation heading if appropriate

Name and address

Keith Burn
District Manager
Jobcentre Plus
St Andrews House
London Road
Derby

May 2006

Re: GILL WHITTAKER

I am writing to express my concerns (and those of the organisation I represent) (delete as applicable) at the recent treatment of Gill Whittaker, the PCS Branch Secretary for Derbyshire, who is also President of the Chesterfield and District Trades Council.

I understand from Gill’s union branch that she is facing potential disciplinary action by Jobcentre Plus in the course of the lawful picketing of her workplace on one particular day during the current dispute over large scale job cuts.

I further understand that Gill has made a request for information under the Data Protection Act that, to date, she has not been provided with. I am advised that Jobcentre Plus is now well outside of the 40-day legal requirement to comply with the request from Gill. Indeed, PCS has informed me that the delay is deliberate and that you are personally responsible for delaying Gill’s request.

I am also very concerned to learn that during the “fact-finding” investigation, that only staff breaking the strike have been interviewed. I understand that one of Gill’s colleagues who was present at the time the allegations relate to has not been interviewed as part of the “fact-finding”.

Thirdly, I have been informed that Gill has recently been subjected to two examples of threatening behaviour from staff crossing the picket line, including having a clenched fist held close to her face by a male member of staff. I would be grateful if you could assure me that you will pursue this issue with the same vigour as you have the allegations by strike-breakers.

I understand that a recent incident was witnessed by two of your managers. I am concerned that Gill herself has had to make a complaint and that neither of your managers have made any efforts to do so.

I look forward to a full reply to the concerns I have expressed. For the avoidance of doubt I/we are writing with the full support of Gill’s union branch of with the express consent of Gill herself.

Yours faithfully

Name

2006-02-24T13:08:00.000Z

SOLIDARITY News Bulletin February 24th 2006
The campaign for the ‘fourth option’ and the right to build council housing

After the rally and parliamentary lobby in support of the ‘fourth option’ (direct investment in Council Housing) attended by 1,300 people, the Labour Party has announced a working group within the National Policy Forum to address the motion passed ‘almost unanimously’ at the Labour conference. Jack Dromey of the TGWU is on the new working group.

However, Ministers want to drag out the discussion until the Treasury Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007. The Defend Council Housing Campaign says that “‘Fourth Option’ supporters are pleased the government is now moving but we’re not prepared to wait that long!”

Speaking at the Labour spring conference DCHC fringe meeting, Jack Dromey said that the working party will look at two things – “greater freedom for councils to improve their housing and for councils to have a role in new build”.

“My view is that the door is open, but it won’t be easy. We can only win by a combination of the power of our arguments and the power of campaigning. We must continue to engage nationally and to campaign for NO votes until we see tenants having a real choice and councils having real freedoms.”

Writing in the Guardian, Helene Mulholland reported that:

“The government has caved in to Labour party demands and agreed to explore ways of increasing investment in council housing without forcing local authorities to relinquish control of their stock.”

‘Caved in’ is, however, too categorical. This could prove to be a time wasting manoeuvre. Moreover, there is an ideological obstacle to the government giving way. The committee is headed by Sir Jeremy Beecham. According to him the party is exploring ways for Councils to invest directly, but keeping it off the “public expenditure books”.

One of the options apparently could be a ‘community trust’ model, whereby the stock would be collectively "owned" by tenants while remaining in council hands. "It is an idea to be explored," he said. If this is some semi-privatisation then it is not direct investment.

The obstacle here is the ‘prudence’ of the Chancellor and his dogma in relation to public spending. He is indulging in crooked book keeping. For instance, whilst Network Rail had to be closed down as a private company listed on the stock market, Brown and Blair refused to re-nationalise the railways because the debt currently held by Network Rail as a company limited by guarantee, and run on a commercial basis, would transfer over to the public purse. However, in reality the company is supported by public money and the government will have to pick up the tab if it went belly-up.

Whilst the campaign for the ‘fourth option’ has largely been based on allowing Councils to bring their stock up to grade without privatising them, it’s high time the emphasis of the campaign shifted to the clear demand that the government end the financial penalties against Councils should they build new Council stock.

The campaign has tactically called the bluff of the government by saying that if tenants are to have a real choice, then it should allow a “level playing field”. However, given the growing housing crisis the question of building new stock is urgent.

In a recent press release the GMB released figures showing that since 2002 the number of households on council waiting lists had jumped by 450,000 to 1,545,509. The statement of GMB Acting Secretary Paul Kenny is welcome.

“GMB has long argued that the only way to reduce the number of household waiting for social housing is to allow local councils to build council housing for rent. GMB also wants to see an end to the policy of moving up social housing rents up to the level of private sector rents.
It is a complete fallacy to expect private house builders to meet the demand for low cost housing. Workers in low paid sectors of the economy need affordable homes in their local areas. The Labour Government must reverse the Tory government’s policy of ending the building of council houses. This demand is increasingly urgent.”

To this should be added an end to the ‘right to buy’ policy which has helped to create the current housing crisis.

For more on the parliamentary lobby go to:
http://solidaritymagazine.blogspot.com/

Visit the Defend Council Housing web site at:http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/

You can download a single page printable version of this News Bulletin for circulation, from:
http://uk.geocities.com/solidarity_magazine/e-news.htm

2006-02-24T09:45:00.000Z

The Israeli Registrar of NPAs drops accusations against WAC

Thanks to the campaign in Israel and international trade union support, the Israeli state has abandoned its attack on the Workers' Advice Center.

Greetings!
We are happy to inform you that thanks to your help and that of many other supporters, and thanks also to the concrete evidence of our work, the Registrar of Non-Profit Associations in Israel has decided to cancel the accusations against WAC-MAAN.

Official notice of this decision was recently given to WAC’s representatives. It is the result of a meeting that took place in January 2006 between WAC, Attorney Ophir Katz representing it, and the Registrar, Attorney Yaron Kedar.

The Registrar’s new decision cancels, in effect, all accusations concerning impropriety in the relationship between WAC and the political party Da’am - ODA. It overturns a ruling from October 2004, which some of you received in the form of a letter from the Ministry of Justice dated October 2005. This ruling ordered the dismantling of WAC on the grounds that it doesn’t operate toward its stated goals, but rather serves as a front for transferring funds to the ODA Political Party.

The Registrar's new decision cancels altogether the eight points concerning improper relationships between WAC and ODA. Furthermore, in his meeting with WAC, the Registrar pointedly complimented WAC, saying, "Nobody wants to stop you from doing your positive work."

Against this background, WAC has reached an arrangement with the Registrar, according to which, during the next few months, an accountant, agreed on by both WAC and the Registrar, will check its books. (See excerpts from the letter of Ophir Katz below.)

WAC sees here the end of a McCarthy-like persecution which began in 2001 at the instigation of the previous Registrar, Amiram Boget, who is known as an extreme right-winger.

We wish to thank you for the support and the solidarity you have shown. We know with certainty that the public backing we received, in Israel and abroad, from labor unions, workers’ organizations, non-profit associations, and many private individuals, both Arab and Jewish, helped to convince the Registrar how important WAC’s work is, creating a positive atmosphere that was vital in bringing matters to a good conclusion.

In order to clarify the legal aspects of the affair, we publish excerpts from the opinion written by WAC’s attorney, Ophir Katz, on February 14, 2006:

1. As will be recalled, the Registrar of NPAs decided, as a sequel to an investigation carried out at the order of his predecessor, to include the NPA in the framework of a “recovery plan” and to appoint an external auditor, putting in his hands complete authority with regard to financial transactions by the NPA, or in other words, the power to determine how the NPA would be managed.

2. The Registrar’s stand had its origin in the finding of an investigator, a finding rejected by the NPA, according to which the NPA does not fulfill its purposes, among other things in the light of his determination that the NPA busies itself in fact with support for a political party.

3. In the Registrar’s decision (from October 2004) a sanction was even established, in case the NPA refused to accept the demand for a “recovery plan” and the additional demands. The sanction was dismantlement of the NPA.

4. The NPA rejected most of the “findings” and the mistaken conclusions that were included in the said report. It announced to the Registrar of NPAs that it does not accept his determinations. The NPA also claimed that it performs only work that is true to its goals and that it refuses to be included within the framework of such a plan, in the light of the fact that its affairs are suitably administered. The NPA also claimed that under the circumstances, the Registrar of NPAs had no pretext for submitting a request to dismantle the NPA.

5. The NPA also announced that it would be happy to cooperate with the Registrar of NPAs and to receive professional help in order to improve the administration of the NPA, if it should be found that there is a need for this.

6. After lengthy discussion and deliberation between the NPA and the office of the Registrar of NPAs, and after heavy public pressure by people and organizations that are acquainted with the NPA’s work and hold it close to their hearts, the Registrar accepted, in fact, the position of the NPA, according to which there is no ground to appoint an external auditor and no ground for his demand to prepare a “recovery plan” for the NPA.

7. In an agreement between the Registrar for NPAs and the NPA, it was determined that no “recovery plan” would be set up for the NPA and no external auditor would be appointed for it. The NPA abides by its position, according to which it is ready to cooperate with the Registrar and to receive professional help from him. Accordingly, it was agreed by both sides that an accountant, whose identity would be approved in advance by the NPA, would prepare, together with the NPA, a work plan for accompanying the NPA during a limited time in order to improve its procedures and activities, if it be found that there is need for this.

8. This arrangement, whose implementation began in February 2006, accords with the position of the NPA and is agreed to by the Registrar of NPAs. This brings to an end, by agreement, the dispute between the Registrar and the NPA.

This concludes the remarks of Attorney Ophir Katz.

We thank you again for your persistent support and look forward to continuing our work, free of baseless accusations.

Assaf Adiv WAC Director
Roni Ben Efrat – International Relations
22.2.06

2006-02-16T21:39:00.000Z

“Home owning democracy”: What’s in a phrase?

A delegation from Swindon trades unions participated in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, in support of direct investment in Council Housing. One of the MP's, Anne Snelgrove told us we live in a "home owning democracy". What's in a phrase?

South Swindon’s new Blairite MP Anne Snelgrove told a trade union delegation, participating in the Parliamentary lobby on February 8th, that we live in a “home owning democracy”. She was explaining why she was opposed to Councils building new Council housing. “Home owning democracy”; the phrase rang a bell. Didn’t Thatcher use it? Yes, in her assault on Council Housing she boasted of building a ‘home owning democracy’. This was why she introduced the ‘right to buy’ through which Council housing was given away to tenants with a massive discount. It was a conscious policy designed to destroy Council housing estates as bastions of electoral support for Labour. How could people with ‘capital’ vote Labour?

That a Blairite MP like Snelgrove can utter the phrase without the least embarrassment reflects the degree to which New Labour is rooted in the Thatcher legacy. Historically, democracy was something which working people had to fight for in the teeth of resistance from the British rulers. Even with the passing of the ‘Great Reform’ Act of 1832 (1) only around one in five males had the vote, women none at all. The franchise conceded was based on the value of the property you owned or lived in. Universal suffrage strictly speaking was not conceded until 1928, and even then, the phenomenon of double voting was not done away with until after the Second World War. So home ownership was an important part of the pseudo-democracy which Britain’s rulers conceded piecemeal in order to hang onto their wealth and power.

No doubt Snelgrove does not mean by “home owning democracy” that those who do not own a home should not have the vote. Rather, it reflects the Thatcherite prejudices about ‘standing on your own two feet’, ‘welfare dependency’ etc, which Blair and his clones swallowed whole. We are all ‘Thatcherites’ now declared Peter Mandelson.

New Labour is the “Party of aspiration” we are told. One New Labour councillor in Swindon some years back spoke with disdain about the fact that there were some families who lived on the Parks council estate for three generations! Can you imagine somebody preferring to live in a Council house rather than owning their own home? Obviously they lacked ambition and ‘aspiration’.

But the labour movement historically had collective aspirations. It wanted to improve the lot of the working class as a whole. New Labour has been created by people for whom personal advancement is their driving aspiration. Obviously anybody who lives in council accommodation cannot possibly be a “success” or they would be able to afford to buy their own home.

One of the tenets of New Labour under Blair was that opposing the right to buy had been a big political mistake, from an electoral point of view. But the results of ‘right to buy’ were disastrous. In conjunction with what was effectively a ban on new Council House building (financially penalising Councils for building new stock), it created a massive shortage of Council Housing (2) and helped to drive up prices in the private housing market. The shortage forced people who might have been on a Council House waiting list, to buy their own house (often beyond their means).

Many people bought their home because it was an offer which was too good to be true. The mortgage was often lower than the rent. However, what some did not think about was the cost of maintenance. On the estate which I live on you can see decaying housing which people snapped up but which they did not have the means to modernise, next to Council Housing which has had double glazing and central heating fitted.

After the initial enthusiasm of purchase there was a high occurrence of repossession as new owners found themselves in financial difficulties, especially in the period of high unemployment.

Snelgrove might have no problem uttering the mantra of Thatcher. However, it is worth pausing to consider the consequences of her policy (for the younger generations she is only a figure out of the history books), many elements of which have been left intact by New Labour. The commentary of Ian Gilmour, an opponent of hers within the Tory Party, throws an interesting light on her policy.

The ‘right to buy’ was taken up, during Thatcher’s reign by 1.5 million families. Although in favour of selling Council homes to tenants, Gilmour complained that the government was “more concerned with diminishing the role of local authorities than with the provision of affordable homes”.

“In consequence, so far from doing much to relieve the housing shortage, which it had inherited, the government by its policies, in some places drastically exacerbated it.”

Nicholas Ridley, the Environment Secretary from 1986-9 was “determined to weaken the almost incestuous relationship between some Councils and their tenants”. A 1988 Housing Act encouraged the transfer of tenanted council estates to other landlords through ‘Housing Action Trusts’. The government rigged the voting system by counting those who did not vote as voting in favour of transfer! As Gilmour comments, despite the rigged system, the great majority of tenants decided to ‘continue to live in incest’. At the time many Labour Councils and Councillors helped to lead the campaign against what was known as “pick a landlord”.

When Anne Snelgrove says that Housing Action Trusts would be better building housing she forgets this Thatcherite attempt to destroy Council Housing.

Gilmour continues:

“Homelessness is far from new, but the sale of Council houses, backed by financial incentives (Thatcher’s favourite Council, Wandsworth, offered free holidays to tenants who bought their homes), required a high rate of council house building…or some alternative provision if it was not to lead to increased homelessness. Instead, local authorities were forbidden to spend more than a quarter of the revenue generated from council house sales on new homes and renovations. In so far as the government recognised the resulting problem of homelessness, it left it to be solved by the market. Thus the placing of homeless families in temporary accommodation by local authorities owed less to bad housing management, as the Thatcherites claimed, than to the financial restrictions that they themselves imposed onto the amount of money that could be spent on repairs to make empty properties inhabitable.”

Because local authorities were prevented by the government from providing new homes, they had (in the words of the chair of the then Conservative controlled London Borough Association) to “spend a fortune” on temporary accommodation for the homeless. “This waste of resources”, he said “completely frustrates our objective of achieving value for money and only adds to the appalling amount of human misery involved.”

Ironically, for all the talk of “welfare dependency” what the Thatcher government did was to cut welfare to the poor and increase it to the rich. In 1979 subsidies to owner occupiers and council tenants were roughly equal. By the end of the 1980s the subsidy to council tenants had fallen to around £500 million, while the public handout to owner occupiers in the form of mortgage tax relief had climbed to £5.5 billion.

As a result of the policies of the Thatcher government, in the words of Gilmour, the council house became “more and more the preserve of the very poor”. Before the ‘right to buy’ Council estates comprised a wide cross section of working class people. One of the consequences of the social catastrophe for which the Thatcher government was responsible, was the growth of mass unemployment. Thatcher’s housing policy created conditions where the best stock was bought by those who could afford it. Whilst some people refused to buy out of principled opposition to the policy, probably the majority of those who could afford to buy, did so, thinking as individuals and ignoring the social consequences of their self-interest.

Progressively, Council housing comprised the poorest sections of the community. The absence of new building meant that very few people had a chance of getting accommodation under the points system by which priority was decided. Single parents became a large proportion of those in Council accommodation. The fact that only the most impoverished sections of the community tend to live in Council accommodation is reflected in the statistics. Up to two thirds of tenants receive benefit of one sort or another. Today many people who might have put their names on the list do not bother because the wait is so long.

It is ironic that a ‘one nation’ Tory like Gilmour could see the consequences of Thatcher’s policy, but in contrast the ideological creators of New Labour, in the words of Mandelson wanted to “move forward from where Margaret Thatcher left off”, leaving in place much of her policy.

Like all Blairites, Snelgrove appears to be prejudiced against social provision which was part and parcel of post-Second World War social democracy. She is opposed to Councils being given the right to build new stock. She believes in the 'purchaser/provider' split. She is convinced that private business is ‘more efficient’. Much better that the private sector provide housing, in her view.

Of course, Councils don’t have the resources to build Council Housing themselves. The one I live on was built by John Laing. But Council housing was considered necessary in order to tackle the problem of much of the population living in overcrowded and poor conditions. The history of private landlords in Britain is well known. “Take the money and do as little as possible to maintain the state of accommodation,” was the principle on which many of them operated. Council accommodation greatly improved the quality of life for millions of working class people.

The Blair government’s policy on housing was rooted in Thatcher’s programme. They set out to remove Council Housing from the scene. They set themselves the target of transferring 200,000 houses a year. For Gordon Brown, getting rid of Council housing was a function of managing ‘his’ national balance sheet. It would make the book look better, removing historical housing debt from public accounts.

However, council tenants have a different point of view. Despite all the blackmail and all the tricks, many of them have resisted the transfer of their housing. It is not because they are in love with their councils. Indeed dealing with bureaucracy is one of the downsides of being a tenant. They have opposed privatisation because being a council tenant gives them an affordable home and security of tenure. And stories of life before the big building programmes are passed down from generation to generation. The Racnmanite landlord was a common figure only 40 years ago (3) .

After the delegation from Swindon had met our two MPs, we walked over to the Defend Council Housing rally in Westminster Hall. Gerald Kaufmann, the former Labour Minister, was speaking on the platform. The contrast with New Labour MPs could not have been more graphic. Kaufmann was on the right of the old Labour Party, a member of the last pre-Blair Labour government. Yet here he was not only demanding that Councils have the right to direct investment in their existing stock, but spoke of the need to build new council housing. He reminded us that Tory and Labour governments used to compete about how many Council Houses they had built.

He confessed that when last in the government he had introduced legislation that had given Housing Associations the right to build public housing in conjunction with councils. But it was only conceived as a small niche. Never, he said, did he imagine that Housing Associations would end up as the sole provider of public housing.

Housing Associations are considered providers of ‘social housing’. But, said Kauffman, a lot of his constituency work involved dealing with problems which tenants had with Housing Associations, which are unaccountable organisations. The only ‘public housing’ now built is the result of collaboration between Housing Associations and Local authorities, often accommodation for elderly people. But the amount being built is miniscule.

Anne Snelgrove did express the view that there is a need for more ‘affordable housing’. But the reality is that the housing market will not deliver it. The government is prepared to offer mortgage relief to private owners. It has been prepared to write off historical housing debt for councils whose tenants vote to transfer to another owner. It offers funds for the lunacy of people buying half a mortgage, giving them the privilege of paying mortgage and rent at the same time!

Yet it still refuses to give Councils the right to build new Council Housing. It appears to be politically and ideologically opposed to such a thing. When Gordon Brown recently spoke about his belief in “21st century individualism” he more or less said that people will have to buy their own homes. Clearly he does not believe Councils should build any.

However, the housing crisis will not be addressed by the market or by government help for people to buy. Personal debt is at historically unprecedented levels. The crisis can only realistically be addressed by a new programme of Council House building. The government’s housing policy is in a state of disarray. Their attempt to eradicate Council Housing has been defeated by the resistance of tenants and trades unions. The campaign for the right of Councils to start building Council housing needs to be stepped up.

Notes
(1) The Prime Minister Grey explained: “The principle of my reform is to prevent the necessity of revolution…there is no one more dedicated against annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and the (secret) ballot than I am.”
(2) Ironically by relying on ‘market forces’ the concentration of wealth and economic activity has created a situation where in areas like Swindon there has been a massive increase in the Council House waiting list, whilst in other parts of the country, which have suffered an exodus of jobs and population, Council accommodation lies empty, with insufficient ‘demand’ for it.
(3) Rachman was a notorious slum landlord in London.

2006-02-05T13:12:00.000Z

Support the Tehran Bus Workers

According to the independent interviews with the union's activists and other sources from Tehran, over 700 members of the Syndicate of the Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Vahed Bus Company and a number of supporters are still in custody following the brutal use of police and the company's security forces on January 28th.

According to an interview with Mr. Yaghoob Salimi, an alternate board member of the Syndicate, the Evin prison was full with jailed workers. Mr. Salimi himself was not arrested during the strike but the security forces raided his home and arrested three women and five children including his wife and his 12 and 2 years old daughters. The release of his wife and children was conditional upon Mr. Salimi turning himself to the police, which took place on the same day. In an enormously emotional interview, Mr. Salimi's daughter revealed that her mother and other two women were badly beaten by the security forces, the 12 year-year-old was pepper-sprayed in the eyes and her two year old sister was terribly beaten in such a way that her face got badly bruised.

The government brought the military personnel and buses to the City in addition to thousands of security and armed forces as well plain cloth officers that were dispatched to suppress the strike. According to a statement by the Syndicate, many drivers were beaten, threatened and forced to drive buses. According to other sources, about 30 arrested workers have been seriously injured and required immediate medical attention and some had to be transferred from prison to the hospital. The jailed workers in Evin prison have decided to go on hunger strike and the union is deciding about its next move. As the Company's CEO had vowed to fire all striking workers, there are reports that the company and the government authorities are forcing some workers to sign a "penitent statement" in order to be able to return to work.

The union has issued a new plea for support urging their colleagues in Iran and the international labour movements to condemn the attack on workers and support their demands. These fellow workers have been simultaneously fighting back against all these attacks on numerous fronts but, having no rights to organize freely or to strike, their protests and walkouts have been brutally repressed by security and intelligent forces. This heroic and tragic event once again demonstrated that the Iranian labour movement not only needs its own free and strong organizations but it also requires powerful international labour solidarity and support to fight back against these violent offensives by the employers and the oppressive government.

There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran is in total violation of the most fundamental workers', human and children's rights. This government must be hold accountable for its repressive actions. The International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran is urging all concerned organizations around the world particularly the world's labour movements to intensify their pressure on the Iranian government for the following urgent demands.

1. The immediate and unconditional release of all arrested workers including members of the board of directors of the Syndicate and its president Mr. Mansoor Osanloo.

2. All acts of violence against workers, women and children must be condemned. Children must be properly compensated and those violated children's rights must be prosecuted.

3. The immediate removal of the security and intelligent forces from the company's workstations and bus depots, as well as putting an end to the violent treatment of workers in labour disputes.

4. The recognition of the Syndicate as the genuine representative of workers.

5. The recognition of the right to negotiate collectively and the right to strike.

6. The removal of the government-sponsored Workers House and the Islamic Labour Council from the company's workplaces since they merely are agents of the employer and the government and have no legitimacy amongst workers. Furthermore, the Workers' House and Islamic Labour Councils must be expelled from all international labour bodies (see below for background information).

7. The expulsion or suspension of the Islamic Republic of Iran from the International Labour Organization due to its total violation of workers' fundamental rights as stipulated by the international labour conventions and the international human rights standards.

8. The Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (Sherkat-e Vahed) and Tehran's Mayor must be denounced strongly by the world's labour and human right's communities as one of the most repressive employers and hold liable accordingly. The company must be pressured to reinstate all workers, pay workers their due amount with appropriate and fair compensation and recognize the union. The company must be warned not to take any retaliatory actions against workers.

9. A fact-finding international labour delegation should be dispatched to Iran to investigate the violation of workers and human rights and publicly report their finding for appropriate actions.

For more information, please contact info@workers-iran.org.

International Alliance in Support of Workers in Iran

Your protest letters can be sent to the following addresses:

Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadjinejad,
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
Fax: + 98-21-6648.06.65 or: + 98 21 649 5880 &

Ambassador Mohammad Reza Alborzi, Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic
of Iran to the United Nations Institutions in Geneva, Chemin du
Petit-Saconnex 28, 1209 Geneva, Switzerland, Fax: +41 22 733 02 03, E-mail:
mission.iran@ties.itu.int

*CC: info@workers-iran.org

2006-01-16T21:16:00.000Z

Ireland: Union Steward sacked for wearing union badge

Many trade unionists around the world will remember the Dunnes Stores Strike against Apartheid which ran for almost three years from June 1984 to April 1987. In the face of an intransigent employer, the union eventually persuaded the Irish government of the day to implement economic sanctions against the old Apartheid regime in South Africa. According to Mandate Trade Union, Dunnes Stores are at it again.

This time the raging, anti-union Irish retailer (the "Wal-Mart of Ireland") has achieved a new low in union-bashing by sacking shop steward Joanne Delaney in November 2005 for wearing her union badge on her uniform. With more than four years service in the Ashleaf store in Crumlin on the south side of Dublin, the 22 year-old union member was elected shop steward by her fellow-members and says she is proud to be a trade union activist and a Mandate member.

Before sacking Joanne, Dunnes refused to attend a meeting with her because she was accompanied by her union Organiser.

Please communicate your disgust at the behaviour of Dunnes Stores by sending a protest message to Mr. Frank Dunne, the managing director of Dunnes, demanding the reinstatement of Joanne.

http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=66

Please circulate this as widely as possible.

2005-12-21T18:39:00.000Z

New York Transit Workers Strike

The 34,000 members of the Tranport Workers Union are on illegal strike in New York, under the most difficult of conditions.

Remember two tier pensions? Workers of the Metropolitan Transit System were faced with the demand of management that they agree to a retirement age of 62 for all new starters, compared to 55 for current staff.

Strike action for these workers is illegal in New York state under the Taylor Law. As a result the union is being fined $1 million dollars a day. It does not have the support of its international union. Yet the membership appears solid at the time of writing.

Below we publish an article on the dispute. To read up to date news you can visit the union's web site at: http://www.twulocal100.org

Juan Gonzalez: Arrogance of the MTA made strike a certainty

Dec. 21-Willie Casiano and his fellow union members tried to keep warm over a trash-can fire yesterday morning while they walked the picket line outside the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's sprawling train-overhaul shop at 207th St. in Inwood.

Down at City Hall, Mayor Bloomberg was blasting the members of Transport Workers Union Local 100 as greedy, as thugs and criminals for daring to walk off the job for a decent contract, for creating massive inconvenience to subway and bus riders.

There is, of course, never a good time for any strike.

The timing was especially tough for Casiano, who landed his mechanic's job at the MTA after the 1980 transit strike.

On Monday, his doctor broke the news that the cancer in Casiano's spine had spread to his lung. He's already endured months of grueling chemotherapy. Now he faces applying to the MTA for disability.

What happened to this sick worker and to so many other employees at the MTA is as much the reason for this strike as a wage increase, pension or health care benefit.

"Ever since I started missing work for chemo treatments, my supervisor's been accusing me of chronic sick-leave abuse," Casiano said.

Nelson Rivera, shop chairman for the 300 mechanics and car cleaners at 207th St., says Casiano is not the only worker penalized for illness. Another mechanic with 30 years on the job recently had a heart operation.

"When the guy came back to work, the MTA demoted him to security guard instead of giving him light duties," Rivera said. "Since then, he's been disciplined twice and is now facing a possible dismissal in 30 days."

Local 100 President Roger Toussaint has repeatedly complained that the MTA issued a phenomenal 15,000 disciplinary actions against his members last year.

When so many workers are being punished and harassed daily by management, something is deeply wrong with the people at the top of that agency.

"We've been fed up with the MTA and wanted a strike for years," Rivera said. "But until Roger got elected, no union leader dared to stand up to management."

All across this city, workers who have no pensions and who must pay huge premiums for health insurance hear about transit workers fighting to preserve pensions at 55 and employer-paid health insurance. They fall prey to the Bloomberg line of "greedy workers."

Have the rest of us been beaten down, exploited and abused for so long by our own employers that we will allow transit workers who dare to defend their standard of living to be painted as thugs?

To hear Bloomberg talk, the Taylor Law came down with the Ten Commandments - and wasn't a modern concoction by politicians to curb the power and influence of our city's municipal unions.

The mayor apparently wants Toussaint and the TWU to accept a two-tier pension system. Then he can get all the municipal unions to follow suit and accept a weak new pension tier in their next contracts.

Even then-Mayor Ed Koch, who presided over the 1980 strike, later admitted in his autobiography how worried he was that then-Gov. Hugh Carey and Richard Ravitch, the MTA chairman at the time, would set a pattern in their contract with the TWU that other city workers would want.

But Koch at least had the courage to act like a leader, not a bully. He went to the talks being conducted and urged round-the-clock negotiations.

Bloomberg and Gov. Pataki stay far away from the talks, but behind the scenes they order their messenger, Peter Kalikow, not to give any more ground to Toussaint and the workers.

Tragically, there was no need for this strike. Not with a $1 billion surplus at the MTA. The agency's arrogant managers figured they could keep abusing their workers forever. They figured wrong.

For Casiano and his fellow transit workers, no matter what happens, no matter how much they end up paying in fines, the MTA and the leaders of this city will never treat them the same way again.

2005-12-15T15:24:00.000Z

Tube Cleaners demand £6.70 an hour

The RMT organised a demonstration outside the headquarters of Transport for London to demand a minimum wage of £6.70 an hour for London Underground cleaners. Below we reproduce an RMT press release.

The RMT Cleaners’ Charter demands an immediate minimum pay rate of £6.70 an hour for cleaners working on London Underground contracts – and the union is urging Mayor Ken Livingstone and TfL to support the demand that no Tube employer should pay less.

“The Mayor quite rightly says that no-one can survive in London on wages less than £6.70 an hour, but there are more than 2,000 cleaners working on London Underground getting far less than that,” RMT general secretary Bob Crow said today.

“Research indicates that 90 percent of cleaners working on London Underground are paid less than £5.51 an hour, and that nearly 40 per cent get no more than the rock-bottom minimum wage of £5.05, while their employers are raking in millions. That is disgraceful.

“Contractors like ISS, Blue Diamond and GBM are making fat profits on Tube contracts and they are paying poverty wages to staff who work long, hard hours in difficult conditions.

“The Tube infrastructure companies are making £2 million a week out of their PPP contracts, yet they are happy to sub-contract cleaning work to companies who have raised the shameful art of exploitation to new levels.

“Eight out of ten Tube cleaners get no annual pay rise, half have never had a pay rise, more than 70 per cent are not in a pension scheme, and 60 per cent get no company sick-pay

“The time has come to put an end to these shabby practices, and today we will be handing in a letter to TfL Commissioner Bob Kiley urging him to join us in winning dignity and respect at work for London Underground cleaners.

“That means a £6.70 minimum hourly rate now, an annual pay rise, decent pensions, free Tube travel, proper overtime pay, fair sick pay and at least 20 days’ holiday,” Bob Crow said.

The RMT Cleaners’ Charter
Fair pay and conditions for cleaners on London Underground

Cleaners on the Underground deserve:
A minimum rate of £6.70 per hour, increasing to an eventual £10 per hour
An annual increase in pay
A simple career path
A decent pension
Free travel on the Tube
An additional payment for late night or weekend work
Dignity and respect at work
Clean mess rooms
Regular provision of uniform
20 days basic annual leave plus 8 bank holidays
A fair sick-pay scheme

Key findings of November 2005 Queen Mary, University of London research into low-paid employment In London

The research team interviewed low-paid workers in four sectors of the London economy: contract cleaning on London Underground (81 workers interviewed), hospitality work, home care and the food processing industry. The report was part-funded by the Greater London Authority.

The report found that 90% of the total interviewees were recent migrants.

Specifically in contract cleaning on the Underground they found:
An ethnic profile of 39% from Nigeria, 19% from Ghana, 15% from Eastern Europe
3 main employers ISS, Blue Diamond and GBM as well as 10 smaller employers
37% of workers were paid the National Minimum Wage
90% earned less than £5.51 an hour
83% of workers had no annual pay rise and one in every two had never had a pay rise
60% of cleaners who responded do not receive any more than statutory sick pay
46% of cleaners routinely worked overtime, putting in anything up to 16 hours a week and 86% of cleaners did not receive a higher rate of pay for overtime work
73% lost income if they took time off to attend emergencies
73% claimed they did not receive other benefits from employers such as maternity and paternity leave
71% did not contribute to a company pension scheme
14% of workers took no paid holidays
Some workers were made to pay for their own training before starting the job
Others had to pay a deposit of £130 for a fire safety card
Cleaners also had to pay for their own Travelcards in order to be able to move on the Underground whilst at work and then ask the employer for a reimbursement

One worker stated that he lost four hours worth of wages if he was 30 minutes late. Inadequate facilities were frequently mentioned with one respondent saying “We can’t use the mess room because there are rats in there”, another described their room as “dark and dingy”. One station had no rest room at all and staff had no option but to sit on the train platform to eat their lunch even in the winter months.

Inadequate clothing was another source of discomfort; one said “We haven’t had any new uniforms for two years. In summer we are still wearing thick jumpers in the sweltering heat. They had to give us proper work shoes because so many people were falling over, but no new trousers or t-shirts
Many said that their employers showed no concern for their welfare and typical comments were “they ignore our advice about working conditions” or “they treat us like animals”.

Cleaning Company & Infraco Profits

ISS

Global Parent Company ISS Group trading update for the period January – September 2005 measured against the same period in the previous year shows: -

16% increase in revenue to £3bn (converted from Danish Kroner)
20% increase in operating profit to £170.9m (converted from Danish Kroner)
No details are provided in this report for ISS UK, but the First Quarter report (January - March 2005) reveals that ISS UK delivered 14% of Group revenue at £132m (converted from Danish Kroner). Although the figure is not listed, we might assume that ISS UK also provides 14% of the Group’s net profit for the same period, which would be equivalent to over £4m.

ISS Group was bought for over £2bn by Goldman Sachs and EQT Partners earlier this year.

Blue Diamond

“Blue Diamond Services Ltd has won a ‘seven figure’ three-year contract from Metronet Rail to clean its 92 District, East London and Metropolitan Line stations.” Reported in RBI 17th November 2005
November 2004 Times reported that the Company’s turnover was £35m

In the same report it was also claimed that BD staff are paid above the industry average, Chief Executive Harvey Alexander said, “It’s easier to manage a well-paid, well-trained workforce than one that is underpaid and under motivated.”

Reported in The Independent on Sunday in August 2004, Mr Alexander said, “And that’s what our business is about, really – staff. If the workers do a great job, BD is doing a great job – which in turn lead to more contracts. So we want to keep our employees… we want people to be proud of working for BD and wearing its name on their sleeve.” The article claimed that BD pays 20% over the going rate as well as providing comprehensive training and a smart uniform.

GBM Support Services

Interviewed in May 2005, Director of Operations Frank Fitzgerald said, “Our only asset is our people – our operators, supervisors and managers”
GBM has been working towards Investors in People
Latest financial return for the 12mths to 31st December 2004

GBM turnover has increased every year since 1997 including by 4% in 2004 to £28.3m
Pre-tax profit increased by 12.3% to £2m in 2004
Profit margin in 2004 of 7.22%. The profit margin has not dipped below 5.7% since 2000
Post-tax profit increased by 26.7% to £1.5m in 2004
Highest paid director in 2004 received £127,000

Tube Lines

Directors’ Report and Accounts for the year ended 31st March 2005 and reported in The Times 18th August 2005:

45% increase in turnover to £864m
37% increase in profit before taxation to £57m
18% increase in the remuneration package for Chief Executive Terry Morgan to £534,000
During the year Tube Lines shareholders also received a payment of £27.5m after refinancing its £1.8bn debt facilities.

Early Day Motion tabled in the House of Commons
Living Wage for London Underground Cleaners

That this House believes the 2012 Olympic Games should allow London to demonstrate it is a city for social justice; is therefore concerned at the recent Queen Mary, University of London report which found that cleaners working on London Underground exist on poverty wages, do not receive annual pay rises, and are often required to pay for their own training; condemns cleaning sub contractors such as ISS and Blue Diamond for employing staff on such shameful conditions; and supports the RMT campaign for social justice for London Underground cleaners which includes a minimum rate of £6.70 an hour.

2005-11-25T18:33:00.000Z

Ireland – ‘Campaign for an Independent Left’

The current issue of SOLIDARITY (Issue 15) carries a report by Colm Breatnach (reproduced below) on discussion on a left alternative in Ireland. The political platform, amended through disussion, and agreed at the founding meeting, is reproduced here for the first time.

Following months of discussion, a number of groups and individuals with a strong track record of campaigning on community and trade union issues have launched a campaign to form a new party of the left in Ireland.

The initiative was launched in June by two independent socialist elected representatives: Seamus Healy TD (Irish MP) and Councillor Joan Collins of Dublin City Council, representing two local organisations; the South Tipperary Workers' and Unemployed Action Group and the Community and Workers' Action Group based in the south western suburbs of Dublin. The Irish Socialist Network, a participatory socialist and Marxist organisation, has also played a key role in promoting this initiative.

Others involved include supporters of Red Banner magazine and a number of well known activists such as Des Derwin, vice-president of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, Dermot Connolly, former General Secretary of the Socialist Party (CWI) and Roseanna Flynn, one of Ireland's leading anti-racist campaigners. Many of these comrades have also been involved, along with activists from the Labour’s Militant Voice in the US and comrades who produce SOLIDARITY in Britain, in the regular Trade Union Activists Forum held in Dublin since earlier this year.

This initiative is especially important given the fact that the main centre left parties, Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens all now favour entering coalition with conservative parties rather than building a real alternative to neo-liberal policies of the right.

While there is no proposal to set up a new party prematurely, the long-term aim of the process is not just a coalition of existing left groups or the creation of yet another small left party, but the ambitious goal of creating a new mass party of the Irish working class. The campaign is open to working with other left forces but the participating organisations are committed to a bottom up, democratic type of organisation as opposed to the old top-down centralised leadership model.

The task now is to bring the message to working class communities that there is now a real possibility of building a movement that belongs to their class.

The groups involved come from varying backgrounds. The ISN is a democratic Marxist, Dublin/Belfast based group mostly made up of former members of the Workers Party and the SWP.

The STWUAG is a large regional organisation made up of community and trade union activists, with a strong local electoral base, having one member of the Dail (Irish Parliament) and a number of elected councillors. The CWAG is a similar organisation that grew out of the Anti-Bin Tax Campaign in the south western suburbs of Dublin. Most of its members are new to politics but some including CWAG councillor Joan Collins, are former members of the Socialist Party(CWI).

A number of individuals involved in the initiative are also part of the editorial group of the independent revolutionary socialist journal, Red Banner, who also come from various far-left backgrounds. Though some have jokingly called the new initiative 'the left-overs' because of our varied background, our experience on the left has meant that we have, so far, proceeded in the necessarily slow but systematic manner that arises from a commitment to democratic methods, rather then the top-down 'follow the leaders' method of the traditional far-left.

Colm Breatnach

Campaign for an Independent Left
Building a new party of working people

The individuals and groups involved in the Campaign for an Independent Left are united by the common aim of a radical transformation of Irish society. We are committed to the struggle to build a society where working people democratically control all aspects of their lives - social, economic, cultural and political - and where the gap between rich and poor is eliminated.

To help achieve this transformation, we believe it is necessary to develop a new independent all-Ireland party of working people. By independent we mean a party that we will oppose in real terms the right wing pro-capital parties, north and south, and will under no circumstances enter into government with them.

This will be a grassroots campaigning party—broad, pluralist, democratic, and with no agenda other than advancing the interests of working people.

We now commit ourselves to campaigning for such a party, winning over people active in the labour movement, community campaigns, and the various movements for social justice to get involved in making it a reality.

The following are the initial points of basic political agreement that have brought us together to begin this process.

1. No coalition with parties of the right, under any circumstances.

2. Public ownership and democratic control of the country’s resources and services, so that they can be developed in the interests of working people and our environment. An end to the privatisation or commercialisation of public services.

3. A comprehensive universal public health-care system. An end to all state subsidies for private health care.

4. A free, secular education system, aimed at the full and equal development of each human being from pre-school to university. An end to all state subsidies for private education.

5. The provision of housing as a basic right.

6. A public transport system based on the needs of users, not profit, and the protection of the environment.

7. A progressive taxation system that will redistribute wealth, making the rich pay their fair share, and lifting the burden of stealth and double taxes from working people.

8. No to so called “social partnership”. We want trade unions run democratically by their members, and fighting for their interests. Repeal all restrictive legislation against union activity. Unite Irish and migrant workers by fighting for basic trade union rights and conditions for all workers.

9. We believe in equality and solidarity between all working people—men and women, black and white, Travellers and settled people, Catholic and Protestant. We will offer 100 per cent opposition to all forms of racism, sexism and sectarianism.

10. We are for an inclusive, multi-cultural society with equal rites for all; asylum seekers should have the right to work; for an end to deportations; full citizenship for all children born in Ireland; work permits to be issued to workers and not employers.

11. A foreign policy based on opposition to imperialism, and solidarity with those fighting for democracy, justice and peace, the re establishment and maintenance of military neutrality, opposition to an EU dominated by big business and for a Europe of solidarity between working people.

We appeal to all individuals and groups who share our vision of a new party of working people to contact us and help build it in practice.

2005-11-16T17:23:00.000Z

Australia: huge rallies against Howard anti-union laws

According to trades union estimates, 546,000 trades unions members joined rallies opposing the anti-union legislation which the Howard government is proposing to introduce. Green Left Weekly reported that in several locations resolutions were passed, calling upon the ACTU to organise nation-wide industrial action against the new laws, and upon the Labor opposition to commit to repealing all Howard's anti-union laws, and vowed to strike if any worker is penalised under these laws.

However, Greg Combet, ACTU General Secretary, speaking at one of the rallies did not call for a campaign of action to stop the laws being introduced, but a campaign to overturn them (before they have been introduced!).

See the fact sheet about the proposed law below, and Combet's speech to one of the rallies.
The Facts

Beneath all the glossy advertising are proposals that will unfairly curtail your rights at work, cut the amount of time you can spend with family, and erode your job security.

1. Make it easier for workers to be sacked

The Coalition is attacking job security, leaving 3.6 million employees vulnerable to unfair dismissal. It wants to:
Abolish all unfair dismissal protection for people working in workplaces with less than 100 staff.
Change workplace agreements so they no longer have to contain minimum award redundancy standards.
Make sure workers who are made redundant or retrenched due to the 'operational requirements' of a business will not be able to claim unfair dismissal, no matter what size their workplace.

Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s abolition of unfair dismissal protections.

2. Allow employers to put workers onto individual contracts that cut take-home pay and reduce minimum standards

The Government wants more employees pushed on to its AWA individual contracts so that employers can:
Single out employees, forcing new working conditions on to them one at a time.
Have more control over your working hours and make more people casual.
Get rid of work rights like weekend, shift and public holiday rates; overtime; redundancy pay and allowances.

Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s plan for individual contracts.

3. Change the way minimum wages are set to make them lower

The Government wants minimum wages in Australia to be lower. This will reduce the living standards for many people who are only just keeping their heads above water. To achieve this the Government wants:
To stop the independent umpire – the Industrial Relations Commission – from setting minimum wage rates.
Minimum wages to be set by a so-called “Fair Pay Commission” tasked only with ensuring the economy is competitive – not with balancing the dual needs of a strong economy and wage fairness.
Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s plan to lower minimum wages.

4. Replace the award safety net with just five minimum conditions

Most of the minimum pay rates and working conditions we take for granted are guaranteed in State or Federal awards, which also underpin workplace agreements. The Government’s new laws will:
Take away any requirement for agreements to be consistent with award rights, and strip down agreements to just five minimum conditions: a minimum hourly rate, 10 days sick leave, 2 weeks annual leave (2 weeks of which can be cashed out), unpaid parental leave and a maximum number of weekly working hours.
Preserve the 38 hour week in theory - but not extra pay for overtime, weekends, shift work or public holidays. There will be no rostering limits on when you will be asked to work these hours.
Remove protection for important rights like: limits on when you can be required to work, overtime pay, weekend or night work rates, work related allowances and annual leave loading.
Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s proposal to replace the award safety net.

5. Restrict Australians' access to unions and make it harder for employees to bargain as a group with their employer

The Howard Government’s plans will affect everyone’s right to get help when they need it most. The Government wants to make it harder for unions to protect and represent employees by:
Making it harder for employees to ask unions to make workplace visits.
Making it harder for unions to legally take industrial action when negotiations break down.
Increasing penalties for unions and workers.
Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s attack on unions and collective bargaining.

6. Reduce the powers of the independent Industrial Relations Commission

The Government wants to weaken the powers of the independent umpire in the workplace by stopping it from setting minimum wage rates or considering new award conditions. It will do this by:
Taking away the role of the independent umpire is a recipe for more disputes and lower workplace standards.
Download a Fact Sheet about the Government’s attack on the Industrial Relations Commission.

Visit the website http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/

Address to the National Day of Community Protest, 15 November 2005
ACTU 15 November 2005

Greg Combet, ACTU Secretary, addresses union members and the community on the campaign to protect workers' rights.

Today, by rallying in such huge numbers, we declare that working people will not be denied a central place in Australia's future. Working families built this country. They fought and died for it. They do not deserve to have their rights at work taken away.

The Government's laws are motivated by ideology - the articles of Liberal Party faith - the prejudices of the Prime Minister. We face these laws simply because the Government has won control of the Senate and has the power to do what it wants. And in the next couple of weeks the Government will abuse that power and ram these laws through. When it does so it will not signal any set-back for our campaign. Rather, it will signal the start of a determined, relentless effort to overturn these laws and put in their place decent rights for the working people of this country. That is our goal.

You have already heard the main ways in which the laws attack worker's rights. Let me give you some more specific examples. Building workers have been especially targeted. They risk gaol for standing up for their rights. I am concerned for them and their families. The most important thing unions do on building sites is protect the safety of workers. And yet the Government wants to smash the building unions. It will put lives at risk.

I want the Prime Minister to know something right now. We will hold the Government to account for the human cost of these laws. Just as we supported the maritime workers when they were targeted, we will support building workers and their families. All of us face risks under the new laws - even for doing bread and butter union work.

It will be illegal to ask for workers to be protected against unfair dismissal when negotiating an agreement - and there's a $33,000 fine just for asking.
And there will be a $33,000 fine for asking for union involvement in a disputes settlement procedure.
A $33,000 fine for asking for the right for people to attend union education courses.
A $33,000 fine for asking to protect jobs against contracting out.
A $33,000 fine for asking for a commitment to collectively bargain.
And a $33,000 fine for asking for anything else the Government might like to ban.

These are scandalous abuses of democratic rights. But we will not be intimidated. Unions must continue to stand up for people. As a union leader let me make this clear. I will not pay a $33,000 fine for asking for people to be treated fairly. Because the Government has gone too far.

On such a fundamental issue we must look the Government in the eye and stare them down.
I will be asking other union leaders to do the same. We must be disciplined and responsible. There is no place for foolhardy or reckless behaviour. But we must also be firm in our resolve to stand up for people.

It is true that it will take time for some people to be affected by the laws. But the rights of every person will be diminished. And for many the change will come quickly - particularly the most vulnerable. When these laws have done their job there will be only five minimum standards to protect people. The award safety net will be gone.

To get anything above the five minimum standards the Government wants you to negotiate an individual contract. We all know what that means - take what's on offer or get lost. No negotiation. No choice.

John Howard should have the guts to come out and say what he's really up to - to argue his case.
Instead the Government spends tens of millions on slippery, deceitful ads. The claim that people's rights will be protected by law is the most expensive lie ever perpetrated in Australian politics.

It would be a mistake for anyone to be conned by their ads, to think 'I'll be alright - it won't happen to me'. Even the best employers can be driven by competition to force down labour costs using individual contracts. Why, during a 14 year economic boom with record business profits, do Australian people have to be put under this pressure?

We will never compete with China and India by driving down labour costs. We will simply end up with an army of working poor and widespread inequality - a society like the United States. That's not the sort of society unions want to see here.

A decent democracy should be improving opportunities for people, reaching out to those who need a hand, and ensuring that basic rights are protected - making Australia more fair not less. Unions believe in fairness and justice, in prosperity for all not just the few, in people having a say at work. We believe these are democratic rights - rights that are worth fighting for. And fight we will. We will fight until we win.

We will campaign for as long and as hard as it takes to overturn these laws. Anyone who thinks our campaign will fade away had better think again. These past months have only been the warm-up to the main event. The real campaign starts now. After the Government rams these laws through Parliament we will work right up to the next election to hold them to account for what they have done.

There are two key things we must achieve in this campaign. Firstly, to build our strength in the workplace so that we can protect job security and pay and employment conditions. Only by sticking together can we achieve this. That is something within our power. Because the laws cannot take away our commitment to each other. If you're not in a union - join - and ask others to join - because the best protection will be achieved by standing together.

The second thing we must do is win the support of the wider community. We must invite Australians to join a movement for change - not just a movement to achieve rights at work, but a movement for fairness and justice, a movement for democratic rights.

We must build a broad coalition of people committed to a better future. Be part of it. Contribute in practical ways. Get involved by registering on our website or by filling out the postcard. Help us raise funds so that we can take the experience of working people into every home with our advertising.

Ask others to do the same. Take the issues into your local community. Lobby politicians. Get active in marginal seats. Put at risk the job security of politicians who don't support worker's rights. Help build a wall of opposition to laws that place business interests above family and community. Because Australia needs to change. We need to reward effort not exploitation. To encourage cooperation not division. To build a sense of community not isolation. Compassion not intolerance. To inspire hope not fear.

I believe that the values for which we stand beat as strongly in the hearts of Australians today as they have done for generations. United by these values, we will not be defeated. We will see off bad laws and bad Governments. We will deliver justice for working people. Let this great event, broadcast across the nation, the largest meeting of working people ever held in Australia, mark the beginning of a movement for change.

I am confident that if we have the courage to stand up for our values, to provide the leadership, to fight for our cause, to reach out to others and invite them to join us, we will win.

2005-11-08T12:56:00.000Z

RMT Demonstration

Despite the tube and bus bombings on 7 July, the Government and London Underground are pressing ahead with plans to cut station staff numbers on the Underground. They are either in their own dream world, or they just don't give a monkeys!

The Government introduced legal minimum staffing levels after 31 people died in an underground fire at Kings Cross in 1987. Now they want to abolish these rules - assuming no one will care!

The RMT has called a national demonstration outside Kings Cross Station on Saturday November 26 assembling at 11:30am. This protest is supported by the FBU and Aslef.

Speakers include RMT general secretary Bob Crow, Aslef general secretary Keith Norman, FBU general secretary Matt Wrack, John McDonnell MP and TUC south-east regional secretary Mick Connolly.

Please spread the word to trade union activists including health and safety reps.

Oliver New

Download leaflets and posters from the RMT web site at:

http://www.rmt.org.uk/C2B/document_tree/ViewACategory.asp?CategoryID=97

2005-11-06T16:55:00.000Z

Report from the Conference Against City Academies

A report of a conference organised by Birmingham NUT and Islington Campaign against Academies, on October 8th. It was attended by 85 delegates, from 6 parents action groups, 27 NUT associations, two other unions, three universities and one Labour Party branch. Approximately 15 current campaigns were represented.

First session chaired by Jackie Ranger- Birmingham NUT past president
Ken Jones from Keele University gave an overview of the city academies programme, its intended design and impact on existing structures. He quoted Tony Travers, the foremost expert on public policy as saying that the public sector was being passed into the hands of voluntary, charitable, private and cooperative hands away from the direct control of the state. Ken posed the question of how local opposition springing up as a reaction in local conditions could be generalized into national opposition to this privatization programme (a summary of Ken’s speech should be available in the near future).

Richard Hatcher from the University of Central England and a Birmingham NUT executive member, gave an introduction to research which he and Ken have been conducting in two North London boroughs among campaigners against academies. He gave direct quotations from parents, teachers and others to illustrate the methods being used by academy supporters to substitute PR for proper consultation. He also demonstrated the negative impact such manoeuvres had on parents. An Islington delegate confirmed that academy supporters are using a DfES manual, ’Academies; marketing tool kit.’ He reported that a parents’ meeting had been successful because it had been held on the estate where most of them lived. It thwarted the attempts by the academy supporters to stage manage the consultation process. He also pointed out how important it was to gat at the sponsors, who in this case were city financiers with no expertise in public services or education.

A Natfhe speaker warned of the dangers to national pay and conditions, with city academies being in the forefront of the ‘new flexibilities’ to fragment national agreements.

A representative from the Conisbrough & District Parents Action Group (CADPAG) described the first victory against academies in their part of South Yorkshire. In the consultative ballot, 90% of the parents had been opposed to the academies proposal. She stressed the importance of teacher and student involvement and a sympathetic local press.

A Lambeth delegate reported the success around Glenbrook primary school, detailing the attempt to take over one of the few green spaces in that part of London whilst cramming 1500 pupils into a smaller unsuitable site elsewhere. A ballot of parents in the area showed 84% opposed to the proposal.

A parent from South Durham spoke of the city academy to be set up in Alan Milburn’s constituency, involving the closure of two other schools, one of which is in the Prime Minister’s Sedgefield Constituency and is ‘one of the best performing schools’ in the country. This fed into the story from the previous day in the Times Educational Supplement of the how schools described as failing by the government and replaced by academies had, in fact been performing satisfactorily.

Parents from the Isle of Sheppey described their initial isolation, both physically and politically on hearing that their one secondary school run by a so called super head, who was only prepared to stay if the school became an academy, was to have its status changed. They described how heartened they were when 300 parents turned up to an initial meeting to discuss the proposals. They have had a number of other successful meetings since and their campaign goes on

Liverpool delegates reported on the valuable lessons that had been learned from the imposition of an academy in their area. One sponsor had withdrawn but the academy proposal was going ahead, sponsored by Liverpool University. Barnsley said that an attempt to set up an all-through 3-19 academy had stirred up great opposition there and had been withdrawn. The United Learning Trust now proposed a secondary academy to be built right next to a primary school in the hope that there could be ‘close collaboration’ in the future.

Manchester Parents reported that one ULT academy had been set up with 6 more proposed- 200 people had attended an initial consultation meeting

In Merton, where two academies are proposed, a delegate talked of the ‘3 cousins syndrome’. His son and two cousins, all living very close to one another, clocked up 30 miles per day between them, going to different schools because they could not get into the school on their doorstep. One academy sponsor is the carpet retailer, Lord Harris. He stressed that any campaign should emphasise the positive aspects of the comprehensive system. Coventry reported on the proposal to set up two academies at the expense of three existing schools. One of the academies would be run by the same religious fundamentalists already running an academy in the less affluent part of Solihull. In Nottingham three further academies are proposed in addition to the Djanogly Academy which is an ex-city technology college.

Waltham Forest referred to their victory over Jasper Conran’s attempt to sponsor an academy, pointing out the extreme sensitivity sponsors have to adverse publicity. The area now faced a more serious threat from the United Learning Trust, an Anglican education foundation with the stated aim of setting up 20 academies nationally. The delegate reported that in response to a question from the Schools’ Adjudicator (an official charged to oversee changes to schools’ status) as to the advantages that an academy would bring to the existing school curriculum, ULT representatives were unable to give any sensible answer.

One parent from London, with children at an academy stressed the importance of continuing to campaign within existing academies because of the attacks on staff conditions and pay levels, but significantly because democratic accountability to parents is weak.

Some publicity materials were circulated which included Brent NUT’s ‘white elephant demonstration’ on the steps of the workplace of a proposed sponsor of a second academy in Brent. It had been reported elsewhere that the sponsor had rung the organizer of the demonstration urging him to call it off.

General points that emerged from the reports included;
• The attempts to suppress democratic consultation is causing an opposite reaction among some parents and other interested parties.
• There is an optimistic feeling about these campaigns - almost as if this is the Government’s step too far.
• The sensitivity of sponsors to having their intentions and motives held up to public scrutiny is their weakness.
• The consultation process is where they are at their most vulnerable.
• The need to research the sponsors’ backgrounds & to share information is essential.
• Head teachers are putting pressure on staff in schools threatened with takeover not to speak out.
• Falling rolls are being used as an excuse to establish academies.
• The need to exchange information, ideas and tactics.
• To emphasise the positive arguments about comprehensive education.
• The need to get campaigns started early and to mobilize as widely as possible.
• The central importance of parent-teacher alliances to avoid isolation.
• Campaigns to be action based; the most effective campaigns are imaginative, using wit and humour to get their message across.

A summary of the ideas from the workshops and decisions taken by the Conference. Session chaired by Jane Nellist, Coventry NUT and nominee for NUT national vice president

• A national network to be set up as an umbrella group to support campaigns both around existing academies and against proposals to set up new academies.
• To broaden the base of campaigning and to seek to participate in other campaigns organized by the TUC, NUT CASE et al.
• A steering committee to be set up open to representatives from existing and new campaigns against academies, to be entirely in the hands of the constituent campaign groups.
• First steering committee to be set up within one month of the conference; date and venue to be decided by Birmingham NUT. The steering committee to be responsible for ;
• naming the organization
• to consider proposals coming from the working groups including;
• drawing up a campaigning guide
• to draft an open letter, statement of intent to be signed by as many people as possible and publicized as widely as possible,
• setting up regional groups
• intervention in next year’s local government elections
• forming links with other groups campaigning against privatization
• boycott campaigns against academy sponsors
• organization of a national demonstration—may be in Sedgefield.
• Seek donations and affiliations

Birmingham NUT were asked to do the following; (All done as of time of writing)
 Issue a press release
 Circulate a report of the conference to all participants
 Circulate the report to all NUT branches
 Send the report and a covering letter to the NUT General Secretary
 Convene the first steering committee meeting.

Organisations in attendance;

Parents groups; Conisbrough & District, South Durham, Barnsley campaign against academies, Merton, South Manchester – Longsight & Levenshulme,

National Organizations; CASE

Unions;Natfhe West Midlands; AUT

NUT Associations & Divisions
Barnsley, Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford, Brent, Bristol, City of Nottingham, Coventry, Dudley, Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Hull, Islington, Lambeth, Leeds, Liverpool, Merton, Redbridge, Rochdale, Salford, Sandwell, Slough, Stockport, Swindon, Waltham Forest, Westminster

2005-11-01T17:50:00.000Z

Conference on Working Class Representation

You may have heard rumours of an RMT conference on working class political representation. For your information we publish below details such as they are so far.

A resolution from the Bristol RMT branch was passed at the union’s AGM in July, which read:

“WORKING CLASS REPRESENTATION

That this branch calls on the AGM to reaffirm its decision of 2004 which rightly characterised ‘the Labour Party under its current leadership as the party of privatisation and neo-liberalism, support for imperialist wars of the extreme right Bush administration, attacks on civil liberties and trade union rights and freedoms.’

And recognised that: ‘it is more important than ever our union takes up the important task of developing political representation of the working class.’

The last year has seen no relenting of these policies, indeed the run up to the General Election was characterised by a wholesale attack on workers’ pensions; housing and health. Therefore, this AGM calls upon the Council of Executives to:

• Build a national conference of trade unions and organisations of working class communities and political organisations to discuss the crisis of political representation of the working class;
• Continue the work already begun by the union, in the European Social Forum, to develop a high profile for the debate internationally on the question of trade unions and political representation."

The resolution was passed with only three votes against.

The RMT Council of Executives passed a resolution to implement this AGM decision. It instructed the General Secretary to "Organise a broad based Trade Union and Labour meeting to discuss the crisis in working class representation". Trades unions at the national level, RMT branches and Regional Councils are to be invited, together with the RMT Parliamentary Groups (Westminster, the Welsh and Scottish assemblies).

It makes clear that the purpose of the meeting is "to discuss the crisis in working class representation not setting up a new political party", "though this will obviously be one of the topics of debate". The conference will also promote the Trade Union Freedom Bill."

It is not clear whether the participation of union branches from other unions will be accepted if their union at the national level does not support the conference.

It will not be open to resolutions.

The branch circular says "I would emphasise that the conference will not be used to promote the establishment of a new political party. The Conference will be a broad based Trade Union and Labour Movement meeting to discuss the crisis in working class representation and to promote the campaign for a trade union freedom Bill."

It will take place on Saturday 21st January 2005 from 11.30 - 3.30 at Friends House, Euston Road, London.

As soon as we have more information we will let people know.

2005-08-31T12:21:00.000+01:00

Workers Advice Centre, Monthly report, August 2005

In this issue:

Israeli terrorist murders 4 Palestinians
WAC delegation mourns the victims
Gazan workers left without work and without rights
'Wisconsin plan' in Israel - The wrong programme in the wrong place
Israel's poverty report shows disastrous effects of neo-liberal reforms

1. Israeli Terrorist Murders 4 Palestinian Workers in a settlement near Nablus

NABLUS, August 17, 2005, (WAFA)- 4 workers were murdered and two others wounded by an Israeli terrorist south of the West Bank city of Nablus. Security sources said that an Israeli terrorist opened fire at a group of Palestinian workers in an industrial zone belonging to the settlement of Shiloh, near Nablus.

The sources added that the terrorist, who works as a driver, opened fire at a group of Palestinian workers killing two and targeted another group killing one more and wounding others.

Local sources said that the victims are from the two villages of Qariot and Turmos'ayya, near Nablus. On August 4, an Israeli soldier opened fire at a bus killing 5 Palestinian Israeli Arabs and wounded ten others, in the city of Shefam'r, north of Israel.

See also:
Four Palestinians Killed by Israeli Settler in the West Bank
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4111.shtml

The orphans of Sinjil - Ha'aretz, 26th August, 2005
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/617299.html

PGFTU condemns the criminal action by an Israeli settler
http://www.pgftu.org/english.htm

2. WAC's delegation mourns the victims of the Jewish terrorist in Shefam'r

A delegation of WAC activists and the Working Youth Movement paid a visit to Shefam'r on Saturday August, 6th to commemorate the 4 dead who were the victims of the Jewish terrorist two days earlier. The delegation included leading members of WAC and 15 members of the ""A-shabiba al Umalia" – WAC's youth group. The delegation put flowers on the graves of the 4 dead and visited the families. Assaf Adiv, WAC's national Coordinator spoke in the home of the Turki Family who lost two daughters (both were students). Later on Ahmad Turki - a member of WAC who is a relative of the dead girls – led the delegation to the cemetery were the delegation put flowers on the grave where the two sisters were buried together. (see picture)

Read more:
A construction worker who was on the bus recounts cornering terrorist
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/609133.html

Thousands honor attack victims
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3123120,00.html

3. Gazan workerts left without work and without rights

Following Israel's withdrawl from Gaza and the dismanteling of the Settlements and the Erez Industrial Zone thousands of Palestinan workers lost their jobs with no alternative work places. Moreover some 4500 workers in Erez Industrial Zone and 3000 in the Settlements were not given compensation. The settlers that employed them said that they were “forcefully” evacuated therefore it is the obligation of the state to compensate them. WAC has made contact with Workers organizations in Gaza to help workers get their rights. We will update on this as soon as we have more information

See more in:
Gaza settlement Palestinian and migrant workers' right to compensation http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/katava_main.asp?news_id=1507&sivug_id=4

Cheap labor, cheap deal
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=613498

No compensation for Arabs losing their jobs in Gush Katif http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/612289.html

4. Wisconsin Plan in Israel - The Wrong Program in the Wrong Place

An article due to be printed in Challenge Magazine Sep. 2005
We print here the first part of the article. You will be able to read it in WAC's site after Sep 20. Those who want it sooner can ask us for the full text to be sent to them soon as attachment in Microsoft word format.

In Early August 2005, the first, experimental steps were taken to implement the Wisconsin Plan in Israel – or as it is named here, Me-ha-Lev: “From the Heart.” Originating in the US State of Wisconsin in the mid 1990’s, it signals a new stage in the privatization of social services, with the aim of eliminating the welfare state. Although the official purpose is to move the jobless from welfare to “workfare,” the real goal is to reduce expenditures by punishing the poor.

Indeed, the proportion of Israelis receiving welfare is way out of line in comparison with most Western states. If there were jobs, it would certainly make sense to help them shift to “workfare.” The problem is that there are no jobs. In the Israeli version, the Wisconsin mechanism is set up to strike thousands of people from the caseload without assuring them of employment.

Israel’s annual Poverty Report, published on August 9, puts it first among western countries in poverty among children. After distribution of welfare payments, a third of Israel’s children (714,000) are below the poverty line (half the median income). The western country occupying second place in poor children, with 27%, is the US. Like much of what arrives these days with the tag “Made in America,” the Wisconsin Plan will deepen poverty.

With the rise of the second Sharon government, in partnership with the neo-liberal Shinui Party, the conditions were ripe for Wisconsin. The Knesset approved the plan in 2003. It jibed well with the reforms of then Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, which included privatization (of the ports, the pension funds, the major telephone company) and drastic cuts in welfare (for the jobless, the physically challenged, single-parent families, and families with children).

During its initial stage, “From the Heart” includes 17,000 of the 160,000 who receive income maintenance. The plan will proceed on an experimental basis for two years in four centers: East and West Jerusalem; Nazareth and Nazareth Ilit; Hadera and the villages of Wadi Ara; and Ashkelon. 30% will be Arabs and 20% new immigrants.

The program will be run by four companies that won the tender. One prerequisite was that each Israeli company had to team up with a foreign company that has already “done Wisconsin” in its own land…

5. Israel's Poverty report shows the disastrous effects of the Government’s Neo liberal reforms.

The growth in child poverty in 2004 in comparison to 2003 is a clear proof of the true nature of the Government policy including the Welfare to Workfare program (see point 4 in this report). The report released by the Israeli National Insurance Institute (NII) says that poverty rates grew by about 50 percent since 1998, with about a third of all children living below the poverty line. Meanwhile, 28,000 additional families dropped below the poverty line in 2004, comprising 107,000 Israelis, 61,000 of them children. Arab citizens' poverty and unemployment is graver than the general Israeli situation due to systematic discrimination, confiscation of lands and all other means of subsistence.

Read more:
Israel leads West in child poverty
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3124397,00.html

Poverty report: 1 in 3 children poor
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3124357,00.html

Easy Comparison – a new databank on the socio-economic situation of Arab Citizens in Israel – Shows a comparison in basic indicators between Israeli Jews and Arabs.
http://www.rikaz.org/en/index.php?s=easy_comp

We suggest to all our reader to go to Challenge Magazine site www.hanitzotz/com/challenge
where you could find a lot of related information. For a one time hard copy of Challenge Magazine contact Editor: Roni Ben Efrat at oda@netvision.net.il

2005-08-20T15:49:00.000+01:00

Defend Council Housing campaign news

30% of local authorities failed to meet the government July 31 deadline for getting their options appraisals approved.
The new 8 page DCH newspaper argues the government policy of privatising council housing is hitting big opposition. Bulk order copies to distribute to tenants, councillors and trade unions in your area (£18 per 100 / £100 per 1000). The arguments are relevant to all those in areas facing transfer, PFI or ALMO and in authorities which have voted for ‘stock retention’ – both need government to concede the ‘fourth option’.

DCH has been told of 77 authorities that have gone for stock retention. Many of those formally proposing transfer or ALMO expect stiff resistance. DCH has already been approached by tenants, councillors, trade unions and MPs from a large number of areas asking for help with organising a local campaign.

Check what your local council is proposing – there’s a stock options spreadsheet on the DCH website (email updates). Help us co-ordinate individuals and organisations in each area that want to campaign - send us contact details for tenants, councillors, trade unions and political parties in your area opposed to privatisation.

We still have some copies of the House of Commons Council Housing group’s 40 page full report. Copies £10 (free to individual tenants) with reductions negotiated for bulk orders.

DCH will be holding fringe meetings at both the TUC and Labour Party Conferences in Brighton. If you are attending either conference please get in touch to help distribute material.

Further information at http://www.defendcouncilhousing.org.uk/ and www.support4councilhousing.org.uk.

2005-08-20T15:15:00.000+01:00

Workers Advice Centre Monthly Report - July 2005

We reproduce here the first of a monthly report from the Workers Advice Centre in Israel.

1. The hidden part of Israel's Disengagement plan: No Palestinian Workers by 2008

In June 2004, in tandem with the decision to disengage, the government of Ariel Sharon took two crucial decisions concerning the Palestinians. First, as an immediate measure, it decided to close the industrial area at Erez, where 4500 Gazans worked. These suddenly found themselves with no source of livelihood. According to Gaza's branch of the PGFTU, most received no compensation.

The second decision was of longer-range: to rid Israel of Palestinian workers by the year 2008.

See the full text of the article in WAC's site: (after the article: "They always Return")
http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/They-Always-Return-big.htm

On the same subject see: "One Big Sweatshop" By Amiram Gil Ha'aretz 7.7.05
http://www.kavlaoved.org.il/katava_main.asp?news_id=1457&sivug_id=4

2. They Always Return – On the situation of undocumented Palestinian workers inside Israel

On June 10th a Palestinian worker from Jenin was found dead in the Israeli Police Station in Rosh Pina (Upper Galillee). Ali Abu Rub was on his way to get his unpaid salary from his former Israeli employer when he was jailed just for entering Israel illegally. The Police rejects the accusations that it killed him. However a friend who testified saw the Policemen beating Abu Rub severely. WAC followed the case and compiled this report on the plight of undocumented Palestinian workers who have no other choice but to take the risk and go to work inside Israel.

Full report is in WAC's site:
http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/They-Always-Return-big.htm

3. WAC takes active role in Barcelona's FSMed

From June 16 until June 19, 2005, social organizations and labor unions met in Barcelona within the framework of FSMed, the Mediterranean Social Forum. Several thousand took part. There were hundreds of workshops and activities. It was the first official occasion on which Mediterranean organizations met to exchange information concerning the economic, environmental and social problems that neo-liberal economics has created.

The Social Form in Israel organized a panel concerning the economic effects of globalization on the Middle East. The panel members were Dani Ben Simhon of WAC and Ephraim Davidi, a representative of Hadash (which includes the Communist Party) in the Histadrut (Israel's National Federation of Labor). Davidi warned against the emergency regulations in Israel that make it difficult to organize workers. He claimed that the Right and the Left share a consensus favoring the government's neo-liberal policies. Ben Simhon presented WAC's activities in protecting the rights of Arab workers. He cautioned that the Disengagement Plan will prove disastrous for the Palestinian people, because it will perpetuate the separation between Gaza and the West Bank.

The first to pay the price of disengagement, he said, are the Palestinian workers. He called on the trade unions taking part in the convention to support the demand that Palestinians from the Territories be allowed to work in Israel.

Together with the Spanish NGO, ACSUR La Segovias, WAC screened Video 48's documentary, "Breaking Walls" to a full house of 60. The film follows three people whose paths intersect at a mural in an Israeli Arab village. One is painter and activist Mike Alewitz. Another is Dani Ben Simhon, who gave up a promising art career to organize workers. The third is construction worker Mus'ab Salameh. Their story exhibits the tangled connection between Israeli and Palestinian societies.

Magali Thill, an ACSUR Representative, introduced the film. Yonatan Ben Efrat, its director, spoke about the way in which Video 48 combines art and social change. After a general discussion, WAC then screened a new short film by Video 48 called The Thirst to Work. It presents, in their own words, the dilemma of Arab women in Israel, caught between official discrimination that prevents them from getting jobs, on the one hand, and, on the other, the conservative Arab society, which frowns on a married woman who works outside the home.

The convention concluded with a colorful demonstration on the streets of Barcelona. In looking back, however, the representatives of WAC and Video 48 expressed regret at the lack of substance. The convention did not relate in any significant way to the major questions that today face the Middle East, such as the war in Iraq and the Disengagement Plan. Networking for its own sake is no match for the region's harsh realities. The global, European and Mediterranean forums are drifting into a routine of hobnobbing and backslapping that does not meet the challenges that confront us.

By Challenge staff: www.hanitzotz.com/challenge

4. Screening of "Breaking Walls" in Laborfest

San Francisco's International Working Class Film & Video Festival July 22 (Friday) 7:00 PM $5.00
Breaking Walls By Yonatan Ben Efrat - Video 48, Israel, 47 minutes

Video 48 is a group of alternative filmmakers focusing on the situation of Arabs inside Israel. When Israel began walling itself off from the Palestinians of the West Bank, Mike Alewitz, who paints colorful murals, from L.A. to Baghdad, asked the Workers Advice Center (WAC) to help him find a site in an Arab village. WAC chose Kufr Qara, where workers picked a promising wall at the football stadium. They told Alewitz that they wanted "a mural that would help them explain to other workers why joining a union is important."

www.hanitzotz.com/video48/breaking-walls.htm

Text of the LaborFest site: http://www.laborfest.net/2005schedule.htm

5. WAC's East Jerusalem branch to organize a meeting of Unemployed workers – Wednesday July 20th – to discuss ways to fight the implementation of "Wisconsin Plan".

On August 1st the new Government plan called "Mehalev" (From Subsistence Benefits to Secured Jobs) modeled on the Wisconsin Workfare program will start to be implemented in Israel.

"…The project, initiated by the Finance Ministry's budget department, seeks to bring chronically unemployed welfare recipients into the work force. The companies that won the tender to operate private unemployment offices in different parts of the country in partnership with local firms are UK-based A4E Work; Maximus, Inc. of Reston, Virginia; and Alexander Calder; and Agens, both based in the Netherlands.

A4E Work will operate a center in Jerusalem with Israeli firm Aman, Maximus will work with human resources company ORS in Ashkelon, Calder has joined Marmanet in Nazareth, and Agens will work with Yeud Human Resources in Hadera. Each office will also be active in the surrounding region as well.

The government plans to invest some NIS 80 million in the experimental phase of the project, which will run for 2 years. The companies will also receive revenues based on the government's savings on welfare payments resulting from the project, compensation being based on the project's performance in terms of the number of welfare recipients successfully integrated into the work force.

Maximus has come under fire in the US in recent years for problematic practices and other faults. In one incident, the company accidentally canceled welfare of 105 families. The Wisconsin Works program, which Maximus is largely responsible for implementing, has also been the subject of investigations regarding its operation, practices and costs, most notably by the states legislative audit bureau (LAB)".

[Doubts cast on winners of Wisconsin plan tender: By Daniel Kennemer, The Jerusalem Post .Dec. 16, 2004]

As mentioned, one of the 4 centers chosen as a pilot is Jerusalem. Out of 3,500 unemployed workers who are scheduled to participate there will be more than 1,000 Palestinians. WAC has a branch in East Jerusalem and is very concerned about the plan. It is part of the Neo Liberal attack on workers’ rights and a direct attempt to pressure unemployed workers. The end result will be that they will have no job and also lose their benefits.

On July 20th – WAC will hold a public meeting for East Jerusalemite Unemployed workers to discuss ways to fight this new scheme. WAC has initiated similar actions in Nazareth and the Triangle (Ara'ra and Kufr Qara) where the plan will affect local unemployed workers.

2005-08-20T13:04:00.000+01:00

SOLIDARITY News Bulletin August 18th 2005

Gate Gourmet Dispute

Discussion between the TGWU and Gate Gourmet management has broken down over their refusal to reinstate all staff. It looks as if the dispute will be protracted.
The Mirror managed to get hold of an internal company document which showed that the company had been planning to engineer a dispute in order to sack the workforce. They had even set up a subsidiary company to recruit another workforce.

TGWU General Secretary Tony Woodley has written an article in the Guardian about the dispute, in which he raises the need for the legalisation of solidarity action. Read it at:
http://travel.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,7445,1549908,00.html

As Woodley points out BA sold off its catering arm in 1997 and subsequently continued to demands cuts from the contractor.

BA is investigating whether or not there was ‘intimidation’ of staff make them join an unofficial walk-out and said that action may be taken against some staff. The T&G has responded by saying it will support strike action against any victimisation. Should BA take any action it would represent a conscious decision to escalate the dispute.

We will have a major article in the next issue of SOLIDARITY. Suffice it to say here that this dispute is an important one politically because it highlights the advantage given to employers by employment law in this country, and the reality of the lives of many workers under a contracting out culture. It presents a major challenge to the whole trade union movement, but especially to union organisation at Heathrow.

Facts about the Gate Gourmet dispute (from the TGWU)

• Talks have been ongoing with Gate Gourment for many months in order to improve the business. During this time the union, the T&G, has played an active role in meeting the business needs.
• In June this year a rescue package was put forward by the company. The T&G said that any restructuring proposals needed to be across the board and include management grades. The company then re-graded 147 shop-floor workers as managers only to make them redundant. The original management team put themselves on higher starting salaries than before and made it clear they would not be part of the restructuring.
• Following this provocative and callous action, when the rescue package was put to the workforce it was rejected by nine to one.
• Since then T&G officers have been trying to find a way forward with the company and other parties to reach a solution.
• With the threat of redundancies hanging over the workers' head, Gate Gourmet then announced that they wished to employ 120 additional temporary staff. Why were they seeking to make people redundant and when they were planning to employ new staff? We would be happy for them to employ new workers if they removed the threat of redundancy from the original workforce.
• Yesterday, August 10th, 2005, the company brought in new workers without discussion. While the union sought clarity on the situation, staff assembled in the canteen in preparation for a meeting. Management then told staff that they had three minutes to get back to work or they would be sacked. They refused and remained in the building. Members starting the late shift also refused to come into work having heard the news. Those assembled in the car park were sacked by megaphone.
• It is becoming increasingly clear that Gate Gourmet had planned this action for some time. Private security guards were put on the gates. Extra workers were bussed in to replace those sacked. Dismissal letters were sent to all staff whether they are on leave or sick. The company had drivers in place six months ago to cover for this event. They also informed companies they trade with the day before that there would be a dispute.
• This dispute has been engineered by the company. This is a premeditated dispute designed to provoke action by workers so that they can be sacked without their due redundancy pay.
• This is a concerted attack on the airport workforce and their trade unions.
• This is irresponsible US-style union bashing which has no place in UK industrial relations.
• Gate Gourmet's action is jeopardising our jobs, our communities and the businesses and livelihoods of many of our colleagues. It must be resisted.

Hardship Fund

A Hardship fund has been set up: send cheques (payable to TGWU with Gate Gourmet written on reverse) to:

Gate Gourmet Hardship Fund
c/o Mr E McDermott, Regional Secretary TGWU,
218 Green Lanes, London N4 2HB

Send messages of support to: media@tgwu.org.uk

2005-08-19T21:26:00.000+01:00

SOLIDARITY News Bulletin August 3rd 2005

Save our NHS

A meeting involving a wide range of staff, unions and campaigns such as London Health Emergency has started the process of launching a campaign, “Save our NHS”, to challenge the government’s stepped up privatization offensive.You can read an initial statement on the web site:
http://www.saveournhs.com/

An article on the campaign will appear in the next issue of SOLIDARITY. The absence of a national campaign against the fracturing and privatization of the health service has meant staff have been left to their devises at the local level. This is a long overdue initiative.

Ballot for action to reinstate Gerry Hicks

Jerry Hicks, deputy convenor at the Rolls Royce factory in Filton, Bristol has been sacked by the company. His sacking is linked to the unofficial walk-out by staff against an attempt to sack two Amicus members. The men were reinstated.

A ballot of the Test section manual staff will take place from August 3 – 11. Gerry’s application for Interim Relief will take place on August 5th.

Rush messages of support to jw1610@blueyonder.co.uk , and copy them to derek.simpson@amicustheunion.org . Bombard Rolls Royce with faxes, phone calls, and letters of protest - Rolls-Royce International Limited, 65 Buckingham Gate, London, SW1E 6AT Tel 0207222 9020 or fax 020 72279178.

"If management get away with sacking Jerry, it will be open season on every steward across Rolls Royce," says John Locke, a test area steward in Bristol. "And it won't just be Rolls. Other employers, especially in engineering, will draw the conclusion that they can victimise union reps and get away with it. We are asking for the fullest possible support throughout our union, Amicus, and throughout the whole trade union movement. "This is a battle we cannot afford to lose."

Employment Tribunal Decision on Working Time in North Sea oil industry

As reported in Solidarity Magazine Employers in the off-shore oil industry have been denying off-shore oil industry workers four weeks paid leave. This was supposedly on the grounds that the Working Time Regulations did not apply outside the territorial waters of the UK (more than 12 miles off-shore). 300 Tribunal cases were registered, challenging this interpretation by the employers. Towards the end of July the Tribunal issued its initial judgement:

“The judgement of the employment tribunal is:-1. that the Working Time Regulations 1998, as amended by the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2003, apply to offshore work (as defined therein) performed in the United Kingdom sector of the continental shelf (other than an area or part of an area to which the law of Northern Ireland applies); and2. that the said Regulations apply to the present claims which shall now proceed to a full Hearing.”

The ruling of the Tribunal confirms the arguments made from the outset by OILC regarding the application of the Regulations. On the links below you can read a report to its members by OILC, and the full findings of the Tribunal on the links below.

Message to OILC members
http://www.oilc.org/docs/WT%20UPDATE%20270705.doc

Employment Tribunal decision in full
http://www.oilc.org/docs/Jurisdiction%20decision1.doc

Workers Advice Centre – Monthly Report

WAC, Israel has started producing a Monthly Report which will include news and reports of its activities. If you would like to receive the Report email: asafadiv@netvision.net.il

The July one includes:
· An article on the life and death of Palestinian workers in Israel
· Israel's plans for Palestinian workers after the Disengagement plan
· Report of WAC's delegation to Barcelona FSmed meeting
· Invitation to the Film "Breaking Walls" in LaborFest in San Francisco
· WAC's East Jerusalem branch organizes a meeting of unemployed workers – Wednesday July 20th – to discuss ways to fight new "Wisconsin Plan".

Fire Brigades Union

FBU members in suffolk have begun a series of strike against job cuts. You can visit their web site explaining the background to the dispute at:
http://www.firefightersagainstcuts.co.uk/

Meanwhile Andy Dark, the Acting Secretary of the London Region, has won the highest number of nominations for the election of Assistant General Secretary. Andy received 123 nominations. Geoff Ellis, generally considered to be the candidate of choice for the pro-Gilchrist forces, received 103 nominations.