Irish Trade Unionists call for boycott of war work

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Tue Apr 01, 2003 14:50

Maybe they would inform us as to why the SP opposed the Anti War lobby of the ICTU Conference.
Their signing of this call is a bit of a turn around. But a bit of paper wont upset the ICTU leadership. As long as you dont embarass them with a face to face lobby its ok.

Michael O'Briens job as Assistant General Secretary of the PSEU will be secured.

by Michael O'Brien - SP/PSEU Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:18

Don't bet on it Magneto. I've no intention of going for the AGS vacancy in the PSEU. Given my vocal opposition to the recently passed pay deal at conferences, executive meetings and branch AGMs the notion that I or other SP activists are cosy with the union tops is risible.
In terms of the other accusation about the lobby on the ICTU special delegate conference. This was discussed at the national meeting of IAWM groups the Sunday before last. Ann Conway (I'm not sure which anti war group she was representing) came to the meeting with the lobby proposal. I proposed that we seek to have someone address the conference to raise all the issues. It was put to a vote and of the 45 or so present I recall only Ann and her Socialist Democracy comrade Kevin Keating voting for her proposal. It certainly wasn't made clear to that meeting that she and others were going to press on with a lobby of the conference regardless of the vote but why let the facts get in the way of half assed accusations.

by Pat C Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:32

Doesnt say much for the IAWM if only a couple of people present were prepared to support lobbying the ICTU burocracy.

by Pat C Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:40

First they werent there because they were concentrating on opposing the Wage Deal and they didnt have the resources etc . When it was pointed out to them how ridiclious this was they now have a new reason - they didnt know it was going ahead!

What happened about the proposal for a speaker? What did the IAWM do to advance this.

Notice of the lobby was posted on Indymeia and Irish Left 48 hours in advance of the lobby. Funny no SP members noticed it.

This must have been the first time in recent history no SP papersellers were outside an ICTU conference. If you were really concentrating your efforts on opposing partnership then you would have had such a leaflet at the conference.

I am glad that the SP have had a change of heart.

by Cat P Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:53

Pat, you are not active in your own Trade Union. How dare you lecture others! I'm sick of you coming on to this website and just negatively attacking the SP. I'm not a member of the SP, but all SP member I do know are genuine activists. Would you ever to snipping from the fringes of the Irish left. You've never seriously been engaged in any struggle, you are not active in the current struggles in your Union.

I never really believed that whole thing about you being dumped by an SP member. But is there any truth to Parental trouble being the source of your grudge about the SP. I heard that your father is a supporter of the SP, is that the root of your hatred of the SP?

by Magneto - Labour Hacks Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:54

Boy oh boy, Michael! A change of story, a change of line. Do you really think you can lie your way out of this so easily?

No one on Indymedia.ie (not even your own drones) believes that the Socialist Party were unaware the lobby was going ahead.

You have not given a rational reason why the SP opposed the lobby at the IAWM conference. The SP had pushed the idea that only strike actions could stop the US Military from using Shannon. Nor, what happened to your notion of a speaker.

The SP have also consistently attacked Direct Action and in particular has stuck the boot into Labour Youth whenever they have announced such actions.

What do the SP really stand for?

by Pat C Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:57

the SP send out anonymous fools to make personal attacks and parrot the same line time after time. They are too dumb to adapt the line when a point has been answered.

The Hole In The Head gang in UCD SY are just exposing themselves as idiots

by Pat Crazy Tue Apr 01, 2003 15:59

Pat, why are you attacking all groups and parties that didnt vote for the motion by Socialist Democracy to lobby the ICTU congress?

I think it's because you have an irrational hatred and grudge against the Socialist Party. SP are not the only Party involved in the IAWM. The SWP and the Greens also voted against it. Why are you not also criticising them?

by Pat C Tue Apr 01, 2003 16:04

also voted againsat it. the other groups dont claim to be revolutionaries.

However only the SP responded by lies and personal attacks which are still ongoing.

The SP specifically said that only strike action would keep US warplanes out of ireland and they counterposed this strike action to direct action.

SP members have consistently attacked DA on indy.

Personal attacks on me are not going to make people forget about the central issues.

by . Tue Apr 01, 2003 16:08

see link

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 16:45

some gobshite thought he would upstage me. i had the last laugh.

Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!

;) ;) ;)

by Harry Lime Tue Apr 01, 2003 17:39

A mate whos in Grassroots forwarded this to me. Is this a GGDublin double deal?

From :
Alan MacSimoin

Reply-To :
[email protected]

To :
[email protected]

Subject :
[GGDublin] Irish trade unionists pledge against war work

Date :
Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:12:20 +0000

Following on from the motion passed at the GNAW meeting in Limerick, Gregor
and myself have initiated a pledge. We have done it as a 'stand alone'
thing, so that none of the Trotskyists has an excuse to refuse to support
it because of where the idea came from.

_______________________

A couple of us have got together and drawn up the pledge below, which calls
on the workers in Shannon to refuse to co-operate with the re-fuelling of
US military planes. The idea behind it is to try to get a large number of
trade unionists to issue the call and also to pledge themselves to support
any worker who might be disciplined for doing so. TUCAW has no existence
beyond this petition and is not connected to any political party - it is
simply one more contribution towards stopping the war.

Among those who have already signed are:
Mary Enright (President, Dublin Council of Trade Unions and INTO Dublin
City North branch),
Des Bonass (ATGWU 3/102 branch & Executive of DCTU),
Clare Daly (SIPTU, Dublin Airport branch committee),
Des Derwin (President, SIPTU Electronics & Engineering branch and member of
Dublin Regional Executive),
Denis Keane (President, CPSU),
Eddie Conlon (Executive member, TUI),
Pat Cahill (Vice-President ASTI),
Owen McCormack (NBRU and secretary of Bus Workers Action Group),
Michael O'Brien (Executive member, PSEU),
Anne Marie O'Connor (former member, PSEU Executive),
Mary Cahillane (Executive member, INTO),
Joe Moore (Secretary, CWU Cork and member of Cork Council of Trade Unions),
Brendan Archibold (MANDATE),
Frank Keoghan (Executive member, TEEU),
Carmel Gates (President, NIPSA)

We know that this initiative in itself is not enough to bring about our
objective, but we feel that it would go some way towards creating the
climate in which workers in Shannon who may be thinking of doing something
might feel more able to do so.

+++++++++

TO ALL TRADE UNIONISTS AT SHANNON AIRPORT

Dear Colleagues,

The planes, weapons troops and material stopping over at Shannon are part
of the war effort which is killing innocent civilians in Iraq. We, as
fellow trade unionists, are asking you, the workers of Shannon, to make a
stand against this unjust, illegal and horrible war.

We realise, as trade unionists from both public and private sectors from
all over the country who have for many years fought for jobs and workers'
rights, and supported the Shannon stop over, that it is not easy for you to
contemplate action of this type. Yet we ask you to do so, to do one of
the biggest acts in Ireland against this war so far by withdrawing your
labour from US military planes and troops using the Airport. We are
convinced that this will not lead to the closure of Shannon but to greater
respect for the workers there.

Please meet in your Branches and Sections to discuss what you can do. We
ask you to refuse to refuel or offer any service to the war machine. But
any significant action - a half-day boycott to begin with - would greatly
add to the movement against the war. A war opposed by most Irish people.
Even action by a small number of you could be enough to start the ball
rolling.

Should any attempt be made to discipline or victimise you for any action
you might take, we pledge to defend you and to campaign in our unions for
your defence. We also call on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to state
that it will defend and support any workers at Shannon who will not
co-operate with servicing the war machine.

Yours sincerely,

NAME UNION BRANCH UNION POSITION (if any)

all signatures in a personal capacity

Trade Union Campaign Against the War, c/o 52 Ard Righ Road, Dublin 7.
[email protected]

by Chekov Tue Apr 01, 2003 18:17

This initiative is the result of a motion passed at the last national meeting of GNAW, at the Grassroots Gathering in Limerick on Paddy's weekend. It is not 'branded' by GNAW since we think that it the most important thing is to get as many trade unionists as possible to sign the petition and any branding would allow certain sectarians to distance themselves from the initiative based on where it came from, rather than the content.

by Harry Lime Tue Apr 01, 2003 18:47

Perhaps you didnt notice the insulting preface, making a sly dig at Trotskyists, which was ommitted from the first version posted here.

You people are not to be trusted.

by chekov Tue Apr 01, 2003 19:28

The 'insulting' preface that you so object to, was a note sent to a private email list, which you have so kindly shared with the internet. There is nothing dishonest about it and how it impinges on our trustworthiness, I fail to see.

There is no sly dig at trotskyists, just an explanation of why the appeal was going to be issued in a non-branded way - the content is more important to us than point scoring. The sneakiness and cynicism of the trotskyist parties is well understood by pretty much everybody who is involved with GNAW. Such a comment is far from being sly, merely a reflection of our hard-won experience of dealing with trotskyist parties. To put it simply, you can't give them the tiniest excuse to behave in a sectarian and cynical manner or they'll grasp it with glee. The authors obviously feared that, if this initiative was given a GNAW branding, the trots would refuse to cooperate for sectarian motives. From a decade of dealing with trot parties, I'd say that their fears were quite rational and based on mountains of evidence. In any case, I'd say that this shows exactly why you CAN trust these people - they went out of their way to minimise potential sectarianism at the expense of profile building -not exactly common among the trots.

It is amusing that, despite the care taken by the people who took this initiative, some anonymous sectarian has dug up an email from a private email list and tried to use that to smear the initiative. Note that, despite the fact that this initiative came from within the GNAW network, the TU group & petition is, as it states, entirely independent of any political grouping including GNAW. So not only have we issued a genuine initiative without seeking to raise our profile on the back of it, we have also not sought to use the initiative to set up a front or exercise control over whatever comes out of it. What Sectarians!

You, on the other hand are attempting to publically smear a genuine initiative through lies and baseless insinuations. I can only surmise that you are either working for the state or some deeply sectarian trot group (or both: how many cops have yez got in the SWP?).

Finally, I should say that it doesn't matter a damn where the initiative came from. Anybody who has a real interest in acting against this war should wish it well and hope that it is succesful and if possible, do whatever it takes to collect signatures for it.

by Comrade Tue Apr 01, 2003 19:30

It looks quite reasonable to me considering the "Trotskyists" reactions to other initiatives by GNAW. If you don't agree with the content of the petition posted here, say so and why, if you just want to slag people off for the fun of it, do it elsewhere.

This is the first serious statement backed by a cross-section of trade union members that I have seen. Can we drop our political snobbery and join together to try to stop Irelands participation in an illegal war?

by Michael O'Brien - PSEU/SP Tue Apr 01, 2003 19:51

1) The delegates at the ICTU delegate conference had their votes tied according to how the result of their respective unions went. Therefore a lobby calling on delegates to vote no would have being pointless. The anti partnership campaign effectivley ran its course by the time the delegate conference took place because the votes were tied so I don't know why anybody would argue that the anti partnership campaign cut across an initiative on the war. I'm not aware of anybody making that arguement.

2) In terms of the lobby on the war issue, I don't know why such a fuss is being made of it. The key objective that both myself and Ann Conway agreed on was the need to secure whatever official backing we could get for work stoppages against the war etc. The debate centred on how best to do that with the upcoming ICTU conference and two choices were put forward. My line of argument was that given SIPTU has affiliated to IAWM and other trade unionists have spoken on its platforms we had an angle to seek time on the platform where we would have a captive audience. The opportunities to present your arguements in full to all the delegates would have been far more restricted with a lobby. As it turned out the chairperson of IAWM tried till the bitter end to tie down speaking time but to no avail. Official support for a stoppage is still being pursued in the individual unions by supporters of IAWM and others. In the context of all this ongoing work and other trade union initiatives being taken outside the IAWM, a lobby of mainly trade union officials is a side show that is being used as a club to beat the SP with, unjustifiably.

3) There seems to be an insinuation that those who voted for speaking time at the conference are softer on the partnership issue. This is nonsense given the campaigning record of the people concerned. In any case are any of use opposed to winning to an anti war positon those who may have voted yes to the deal? It would be hard to construct any broad campaign on that basis.

4) Pat C complains of receiving anonymous personal abuse from SP members. Pat, I honestly don't know if SP members are personally abusing you but if they are and they are reading this I urge them to knock it off and do postings in their own name. Conversley Magneto your initial posting made specific personal insinuations about me. I've addressed them but I challange you too, to do your postings in your own name and elaborate your own record in terms of anti war and trade union activity.

by Michael O'Brien - PSEU/SP Tue Apr 01, 2003 20:00

I never said the SP didn't know about the before the event. I can't speak for all our members, I'm sure those that read indymedia (ie not many!) knew about the lobby. Being on leave from work that week I gave Indymedia a break! I said that I personally wasn't left with the impression coming out of the meeting that the lobby was going ahead. Maybe others who were there can comment.

by pat c Tue Apr 01, 2003 20:01

") Pat C complains of receiving anonymous personal abuse from SP members. Pat, I honestly don't know if SP members are personally abusing you but if they are and they are reading this I urge them to knock it off and do postings in their own name"

Thanks for that. Its not just anonymous Spers, GK identified himself as SP. Oisin Kelly SP is a dab hand at the personal insults.

While I dont think you have adequately addressed the points I think Magneto is completely wrong in his insinuation that you are seeking personal advancement in the PSEU.

by Aidan Tue Apr 01, 2003 20:43

Didn't you acuse me of abusing the Queens English and
descending into gibberish when I used the same phrase
phrase a while back Pat?

;)

by OK - SP Tue Apr 01, 2003 20:43

Where did I ever throw a personalised attack at you? I have only ever criticised your politics and the way in which you seem to have a fixation on the Socialist Party, and in particular UCD members for some reason.

Pat, could you please knock it off. There is no evidence of SP members attacking you personally. There is no evidence that I personally atacked you.

by Comrade Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:19

Could you drop your childish gripes for 2 seconds and respond to the original post. What do the trade union members of IAWM think of this initiative? What do other trade union members think? Is it something people are willing to support and bring to their workplace? It is a moot point for myself because I'm in a non-unionised workplace but I will be bringing it to the attention of my friends who are in unions.

by pat c Wed Apr 02, 2003 15:06

i've been called every name under the sun by sp members, fascist, catholic nationalist etc etc as well as the open abuse whenever i as k an awkward question of the sp the same anonymous fools crawl out of their sewers and engage in poersonal attacks.

funny timing that, eh?

reminder: you have now given 3 different reasons for not lobbying the ictu conference.

aidan

i've come to like yadda yadda yadda

i acknowledged you as my source. ;)

by OK - SP Wed Apr 02, 2003 15:23

Where is there any evidence of me personally attacking you?

There is no evidence of SP members attacking you. Even if there was, there is no way you can justifyably claim I personally attacked you.

Pat, I expect an apology.

by pat c Wed Apr 02, 2003 18:34

Apology?!?%$£"*&

Come now Oisin , who are you kidding. In the thread where I pointed out the SPs perfidery, you called me mad, hardly political analysis. Further back you will find more.

I am also quite sure that a lot of the anonymous attacks originate from the Hole In The Head Gang in SY UCD.

Have a rotten life.

Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!
;) ;) ;)

by Ensign Chekov - Starfleet Academy Wed Apr 02, 2003 19:36

'You, on the other hand are attempting to publically smear a genuine initiative through lies and baseless insinuations. I can only surmise that you are either working for the state or some deeply sectarian trot group (or both: how many cops have yez got in the SWP?).'

By these ravings you have shown how irrelevant you are. What do you base your accusations on apart from your drug fuelled delusions.

You had a different version of your petition on your internal list, one in which you made a sectarian attack on people who you had fooled into sponsoring your petition.

You dont just hate the SWP, your bile is also spewed on the SP. You called Kevin MacLoughlin the little Lenin of the SP. Coming from you thats a bit Freudian.

Have you got small man complex?

You are a pathetic pseudo activist, a true armchair activist and Cyber Warrior. Mind you dont fall off your barstool, armchair or swivel chair.

by Oisin Kelly - SP Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:45

I couldnt tell you if attacks on you originated in ucd. They may have, they may not have, but there's no evidence. And Pat, dont be so naive to think that its only the SP that dont appreciate your apparent obsession with us.

by pat c Thu Apr 03, 2003 14:24

who are these altruistic folk who gird their loins for battle whenever the sp are trying to avoid answering an awkward question?

by Chekov Fri Apr 04, 2003 15:21

Your sneers give you away. It takes at least a couple of decades in the leadership of a trotskyite cult to gain such depths of snideness, so you could only be one of the dinasours whose names begins with k and ends with n.

Once you have grown up and seize state control, you will be known as 'big lenin', for the moment it's still 'little'. Sorry.