Launch of Independent Workers Union

by SIPTU activist Thu Mar 25, 2004 18:58

why are ye establishing this new union. surely your efforts would be best served at campaigning in existing unions for a proper leadership. why try to split workforces between 2 unions?

by Fintan Lane - Independent Workers' Union member Thu Mar 25, 2004 21:15

It might surprise 'SIPTU activist' to learn that, in fact, there is more than one other union in this country - or perhaps this is a case of negativity for negativity's sake? He/she might as well ask why ANY union exists other than SIPTU!

The IWU is a good initiative and deserves support. It's considerably more left-wing and engaged with the concerns of workers than the bureaucracy-riddled SIPTU.

by observer Thu Mar 25, 2004 21:42

I am not a siptu activist, or a trade union activist at all, in fact. But that siptu activist has a point. Surely attempts at reforming SIPTU would be more beneficial to the working class, consolidating workers in a larger group. Splitting again just weakens you. Its a cliche at this stage, but cliches are so annoying because they are generally true!

by David Thu Mar 25, 2004 21:57

In the case of Unions i think that splitting them up into small federated units would make them much stronger, more democratic, more active and more adaptable and much less likely to submit to a beaurocracy selling out sections in favour of national agreements. each union for each workplace would remain autonomous as well as retaining the option to engage in collective action with other unions.
best of both words imo

by observer Thu Mar 25, 2004 22:07

But splitting unions means that they don't speak with one voice on a national scale. And like it or lump it, unions need to be strong on a national scale, or they are useless when it comes to opposing governments, big business...etc. If the unions have the same objectives, but are just federated on a smaller geographic breakdown, that achieves very little. If the objectives are the same, the voice should be the same. They can still be organised at a more local level, whilst remaining part of the same organisation. Why the need for the IWU to forge its own identity?

by David Thu Mar 25, 2004 22:16

that if one group of workers feel they really need to defend themselves, they cant be vetoed by a bunch of self interested hacks in other branches of the union or stabbed in the back by a highly paid cushy beaurocracy that are totally disconnected from their members. Workers in a federation could still sign joint declarations to put to the government if needs be.. but having a handful of really big unions makes the governments job much easier and reduces worker representation. real democracy can only work on a small scale

by Jack White Thu Mar 25, 2004 23:08

Although you have a point. No, more than a point you'd be right, activiists should campaign within SIPTU and not set up other unions, if that was possible.

But as far as I'm aware. (Not a SIPTU member myself). Members of SIPTU can't campaign within the union because the members have absolutely no power, all power lies with the union beuraeucracy. The only time that members have any power at all is at the National Conferences, but even there they don't have much power. Wasn't a motion passed at the last conference that pledged the union to fight privatisation? And look at what O'Connor has just gone and done with the bus drivers! He's not following his mandate!

And wasn't another motion passed that said that SIPTU would fight for a 35 hour week. Ha, so much for that. I haven't heard a word about it since.

All that said you are right. A rank and file movement in SIPTU would do more for the TU movement than the IWU can but that movement doesn't exist. The IWU does. Maybe (hopefully) as the IWU gets more active it will serve to galvanise SIPTU members and will aid in creating a rank and file movement in SIPTU.

But I think we should support workers organising democratically where ever and however they can. To get the OBU we need a multiplicity of tactics.

by 3 102 Brother T&G Fri Mar 26, 2004 03:06

Ahh, its good to see the One Big Union is so well thought of on Indymedia. I think this is behind SIPTU activists recommendation not to split workers between 2 unions, rather than forgetting about the 500,000 organised workers outside SIPTU.

My understanding is that the IWU was set up after the ILDA and Mick O'Reilly debacle - COBS members had joined the ATGWU and left, taking their negotiating license with them after the union suspended a couple of senior officials here in Ireland.

Given that a major issue with ILDA was SIPTU's refusal to let these workers leave and join another union (except when the workers wanted something from them - in which case they said in the High Court that they were not members) its not surprising that they didn't choose to join and attempt to reform SIPTU. Have a look at their constitution on (www.union.ie) the rights of workers to leave as well as join a union - unusual except in the specific circumstances.

At the very least I think the IWU can be a threat to be used within our existing unions - especially if they get large numbers of solidarity members and this becomes known. They could also provide a model for union structures.

As for unions power on a national scale - all this has done is give us 3% and unions policing workers. The workplace is where it matters. The work done by Des Derwin and others (few but hopefully growing) within SIPTU is of course important - but I would still not recommend joining SIPTU over another union. Don't know what the IWU would be like if I needed them, but can it be worse? (check out Brendan Hayes career to see how bad it can get)

by Fintan Lane - IWU member Fri Mar 26, 2004 03:19

'One Big Union' is an interesting concept (with some merit), but it is hardly applicable in a situation where SIPTU (one union of many in Ireland, though admitedly the largest) has bought into 'social partnership' so thoroughly and has a layer of bureaucrats that would make many businesses blanch. Yes, of course SIPTU members should be supported and encouraged in their rank-and-file efforts to take back the union, but it is ludicrous to suggest that more left-wing and democratic unions (such as the IWU) should simply allow themselves to be absorbed.

by IWU Member Fri Mar 26, 2004 05:51

As I IWU member I am realistic enough to realise that the IWU project is already a failure. It was supposed to have been an alternative union that was going to get thousands of members from various unions all from Mick O'Reilly's and some CPers efforts. None of this materialised. The IWU is a tiny an insignificant union that wil never grow. The lesson of the IWU is that workers don't leave their unions easily even if they have rotten leaders and that union activists need to get their act together to organise and fight their union leaders and replace them. Leaving your union and joining something like the IWU is just jumping into the wilderness.

by Another IWU Member - Independent Workers Union (IWU) Fri Mar 26, 2004 20:49 Galway

"IWU Member" (If you really are one!), you're talking crap! Maybe the Independent Workers Union should be bigger, but there are talks (I can't say too much at this stage) with 2 other small Unions to merge with the IWU, and so far we're very hopeful that they will be successful, plus we have been busy out recruiting dis-satisfied CIE and Aer Rianta workers, especially since Jack O'Connor and his 2 henchmen interfered with the democratically mandated of the Strike Committees and put a gun to their heads, demanding that they call off their strikes, and we have got many new members in the last week. "IWU Member" (If you really are one!), you'll see all this, if you bother to come down to our 1st inaugurial conference in the Victoria Hotel, Cork, tomorrow week.

by John Sat Mar 27, 2004 12:47 dunaree2000 at yahoo dot com

Who cares? Unions are on their way out anyway. Technology, the internet, privatisation and outsourcing are making them redundant. Who cares now if the postal workers go on strike? - we have email. Who cares now if the train drivers go on strike? - we have cars and motorways. Who cares now if Aer Lingus staff go on strike - we have Ryanair. That's the story of, that's the glory of capitalism. If you dont like it, go to Cuba or North Korea and be paid $1 a week.

by Paul Kinsella - CPSU (Personal capacity) Sat Mar 27, 2004 22:21 paulkinsella53 at yahoo dot com 53 Lorcan Grove, Santry, Dublin 9, Eire 085-1478100

John you're talking crap! Like for example "Who cares? Unions are on their way out anyway. Technology, the internet, privatisation and outsourcing are making them redundant." Lie 1, Many workers (Mostly young) in the new technological sector want to join Unions, but they are not been let by their employers, What do you have to say about that John? Also, if the existing Unions had bothered to recruit workers in these sectors of the economy they would have got a lot of new members. Lie 2, "Who cares now if the postal workers go on strike? - we have email." What about Pensioners and others on social welfare? What about those who send cheques, invoices, and other valuable things by post? What about if you want to send heavy and bulky items, and personal things? Lie 3, "Who cares now if the train drivers go on strike? - we have cars and motorways." This is where you really reveal yourself as a selfish pig John? What about those of us who don't have cars? Are we some form of sub-normal just because we don't have polluting, global warming cars? And what about all the freight that is still carried by rail? Many businesses, and I know this from personal experience, prefer to send their products by rail for a number of reasons." Lie 4, "Who cares now if Aer Lingus staff go on strike - we have Ryanair." Again selfish, Ryanair don't fly to the states, waht would you want people to do John? Cancel their trips to the states just because Ryanair don't fly to the states? Lie 5, "That's the story of, that's the glory of capitalism. If you dont like it, go to Cuba or North Korea and be paid $1 a week." There are many people in Ireland, especially immigrants who are only being paid €1 an hour (About 1.25 dollars, sorry don't have dollar symbol on this pc), yes a bit better than 1 dollar a week, but still gross exploitation. "The glory of capitalism" me eye! John, I notice from another thread that you haven't contributed anything to Indymedia since you said you were going for a Big Mac and Coke in McDonalds. Maybe you choked on it!

by John Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:26 dunaree2000 at yahoo dot com

Paul, you need to lighten up. You are working yourself into a lather about the evils of capitalism which is quite unnecessary. Its bad for your health. Capitalism isn't perfect but its by far the best system ever invented. Don't believe me? OK, tell me a better one. Can you name one non-capitalist country in the world where the people are better off than in Ireland. Of course, you can't'. To answer your points: (a) proportion of work force in unions in all western countries is declining (b) virtually everyone nowadays has a close friend or family member with a car (c) internet can handle 95% of communication normally done by snail mail, scores of private firms available to do the rest (d) Ryanair dont fly to States, but fly to Manchester - takes 20 min and easy to catch a flight to the States from there (e) minimum wage in Ireland is one of highest in the world.

by laura Tue Apr 06, 2004 14:52 shoegirl at eircom dot net

Perhaps some of the SIPTU people here can explain why you have a policy of ignoring membership requests from companies not already organised?

I have sent several emails to SIPTU on behalf of myself and my 80 colleagues in a company which has had a pay freeze for two years, will not give staff pay increases when promoted, and grossly exploits workers. We need support and SIPTU gave us a two finger salute. Apart from my initial email, all my emails to SIPTU have been ignored.

Perhaps one of your SIPTU representatives might like to contact me at [email protected] and explain why you are only interested in selective membership.

Good luck to the IWU, I will talk to my colleagues and get a feel on whether we might be interested in joing you now that SIPTU obviously have no interest in us.

by Frank - Self-employed Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:13 fdobbins3 at eircom dot net

What an excellent idea. We need to protect our inefficient monopolies. Workers should not have to face commercial realities. When an employer gives a worker a job, he has promised him security from cradle to grave irrespective of whether or not the company can make any money or whether or not the worker works hard.

Profit motives are morally wrong. Management is organised exploitation. The vision for Ireland should be a fair, democratic and united country, like Cuba.

We can be as successful as Cuba if we abandon capitalism and force the rich to give their moeny to the workers. Lets make it happen!

by Michael Gallagher Tue Sep 07, 2004 18:46 mglibertypics at hotmail dot com

The trade unions both Connolly and Larkin founded were revolutionary, with the ultimate goal of the emancipation of the Irish working class. Any deviation from their aims by any trade union is a slow trot to the status quo!
There are tens of thousands of workers unrepresented in all industries ripe for recruitment and tens of thousands more in the pipeline.
If the IWU are a 'from the bottom up' trade union, they have got off to a good start.
Good luck to the them.

by Pedant Tue Sep 07, 2004 18:52

How can you trot to the status quo? We're already there, so any trotting we do would logically have to be away from it

by Michael Gallagher Wed Sep 08, 2004 18:23

Maybe you should read my comments again and you won't find any nits to pick.

You are saying that the IWU are at the status quo.

by Pedant Wed Sep 08, 2004 18:28

No I'm a linguistic pedant, not a political one. "status quo" means "current position" and you can't have a slow trot towards the place you're already at.

by Michael Gallagher Thu Sep 09, 2004 18:47

Exactly my point. The IWU are not at the current position of SIPTU etc. Have a pint on me. Have you signed up yourself?