At last: The Campaign Against the Pay Deal

by trade unionist Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:32

Just scrolled through your very good website. A question, though, if you don't mind.

You have an Irish Times article up on your site by Kieran Allen (one of your organisers) in which he finishes up by demanding that the union bureaucrats be sent back to negotiate a 'better' deal. Now I'm against any type of centralised bargining, so my question is, is this the policy of the campaign or of elements in the campaign?

by pat c Wed Jul 05, 2006 15:49

I cant speak for the campaign, this is just mt own opinion.

In any campaign there will be a variety of views, any attempt to impose Democratic Centralism would be a disaster: you wont have a campaign.

IMHO KAs article puts forward a good proposition: a defeat for the Beaurocracy on Towards 2016 would be a victory for rank & file trade unionists. Even if a "better" deal was later passed the beaurocracy wouldnt quickly recover

You are against any centralised bargaining: fair dues to you.

I'm not against centralised bargaining, I think we should use the strength of the trade union movement to ensure that the weaker sectors also get the best possible deal. That doesnt mean that I support Partnership, it means that I support the old IWW motto that: An Injury To One Is An Injury To All. By abandoning the weaker sectors you are allowing those workers to be injured.

To take your position to its logical conclusion then negotiations should only take place on a workplace basis. Well thats not how it ever worked in the Trade Union movement, negotiations, outside of Partnership, have always taken part on an industry and sectoral basis. Thats why there are minimum pay rates way in excess of the SMW in industries such as Construction, Catering, Hairdressing, Hotels etc.

Are you opposed to centralised bargaining in these areas? Will you campaign to have them stopped?

Nothing wrong to have a variety of opinions in a campaign as long as all of them are geared towards deafeating Towards 2016.

by Wibble Wobble Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:50

"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth. ... Instead of the conservative motto, 'A fair day's wage for a fair day's work', we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, 'Abolition of the wage system. It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism."

Don't think that includes going back to the bosses looking for a better deal. You are being honest about what position you would take but don't bring the IWW into it.

by pat c Wed Jul 05, 2006 17:57

i dont need your permissionto quote the IWW. incidentally are you opposed to centralised sectoral bargaining? do you believe that the agreed minimum rates in the construction industry should be abolished? should bargaining take place on a site basis.

you should find out the meaning of Industrial Unionism before yopu go quoting the IWW. A quote removed from context and from the reality of centralised sectoral bargaining is meaningless.

RTE, CIE, Aer Lingus etc all have groups of Unions. Should these be broken up?

by Wibble Wobble Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:06

I never said you need permission to quote the IWW. I said your position is honestly held. All I said was that the IWW wouldn't be supportive of Partnership agreeements. The other things you mention aren't dependent on selling your soul in the same way Partnership does.

by pat c Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:12

i oppose partnership. that doesnt mean that i have to oppose collective bargaining. what is the alternate to the present pay deals? surely it is negotiation on a sectoral basis rather than every man or woman for him/herself. i never implied the IWW would support partnership.

l

by WW Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:18

But if you send them back to renegotiate it means that you are sending a sign that you implicitly support Partnership. It is a dishonest tactic on behalf of the SWP. And why? To get half hearted support from one SIPTU NEC member who happened to turn up at a PBP meeting. Is it worth it? I don't think so. Better to be honest about your politics.

by pat c Wed Jul 05, 2006 18:28

i honestly dont think so. if towards 2016 is defeated then its a major setback for the burocracy. if there was a well developed rank & file TU movement then it could take advantage of such a defeat and smash partnership once and for all. such a group does not exist and theres no point in kidding ourselves about it.

in the event of a defeat of T2016, in the abscence of an organised resistance, it is likely that the Burocracy will renegotiate it. But this in itself would be a major defeat for them, they would be weakened. even if a revised T2016 was then accepted the Burocracy would not have regained all of their standing.

This leaves room to build a real opposition to the TU Burocracy rather than having yet anothr meeting of lefties in a hall.

by Jo Hill Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:56

I would not expect the vision or the boldness of the Haymarket martyrs, but surely a call for a 30 hour working week (or a 35 hour week for the more timid trade unionists) could be advanced? Or would this upset our comrade partners bertie and IBEC too much?

by Trade unionist Thu Jul 06, 2006 19:49

Towards 2016 will be passed, that is a certainty. You need to get real Pat C. You perspective of what would happen if the deal is defeated is irrelevant, the deal will not be defeated and everyone involved in the "Campaign Against the Pay Deal" knows it. Therefore you are justifying campaigning for a better social partnership deal based on a false premise! The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is a sell out and an abandonment of principled opposition to social partnership, opposition to class collaboration. The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is calling for a better form of class collaboration.

by revo Thu Jul 06, 2006 21:10

I notice that nobody but the SWP, Des Derwin and one or two other independents are involved in this particular campaign. No Socialist Party, no WSM, no ISN, no WP, no CPI, though all have activists in SIPTU. This is actually worse than any previous campaign against partnership, because its the first 'anti-partnership' campaign which isn't really anti-partnership, just against this particular deal, and for the first time no left organisation other than the SWP is involved. Theres progress for ye!

by pat c Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:07

Towards 2016 will be passed, that is a certainty. You need to get real Pat C.

If its predestined that its going to be passed then why have any campaign against it?

You perspective of what would happen if the deal is defeated is irrelevant, the deal will not be defeated and everyone involved in the "Campaign Against the Pay Deal" knows it.

Where do you get your crystal ball and how do you read peoples minds?

Therefore you are justifying campaigning for a better social partnership deal based on a false premise!

Thats known as a non-sequitar or setting up a man of straw to knock down. You presume you are 100% right therefore everyone else is both wrong and dishonest. I doubt if you are a trade unionist. You sound more like a 16 year old Trot-Tot.

The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is a sell out and an abandonment of principled opposition to social partnership, opposition to class collaboration. The Campaign Against the Pay Deal is calling for a better form of class collaboration.

That is just ignorant abuse. Who are you? An anonymous troll. What have you ever fought for?

by D_D Fri Jul 07, 2006 14:34

'Trade unionist' asked originally about the policy of the (little) Campaign Against the Pay Deal.

Kieran Allen's call, in the Irish Times article, etc, is his own policy. It is not incompatable with the Campaign. But the ONLY publication we have produced is the above leaflet. We have also distributed the briefing, produced before the campaign was established (if we can use such formal terms about something so small and hurried), which can be found in the Other Press part of Indymedia.

Older activists will remember that earlier and infinitely larger and broader campaigns against national deals concentrated on the particular deals and allowed for the participaion of those who might not have a problem with centralised (national) bargaining as such.

If there was a campaign that opposed social partnership explicitly I would have no hesitation in supporting it. At present the CAPD is distributing 10,000 copies of the above leaflet.

My alternative to social partnership is free collective bargaining or as Kieran Allen put it so well in his 1999 pamphlet 'Workers and the Celtic Tiger: Why Partnership Doesn't Pay':

"The alternative to social partnership is that workers get the freedom to make claims against employers when they choose. Sometimes this will be done on a workplace basis. Shop stewards should seek a mandate from their members and submit claims for higher pay rises and better conditions and report back regularly on the negotiations. Sometimes this will occur on an industry-wide basis..." [End quote]

Free collective bargaining always included sectoral and industrial bargaining (e.g. teachers and building workers), JICs etc. It is interesting that the one rate which naturally SHOULD be bargained on nationally and through the ICTU (who else?) is the National Minimum Wage. But under this deal, and the last one, this right to bargain on the MNW has been given up by Congress and handed over to the Labour Court to determine.

Being accused of selling out on social partnership is a novelty for the people involved in this wee campaign, though I suppose we're as capable of selling out as anyone.

by Socialist Wed Aug 16, 2006 14:20

SIPTU voted today to accept the deal by 72% to 28%. Wasn't that the same vote the last time? Well did the tactic of diluting the 'No to Partnership' stand to a position of renegotiating do any good? Did it f**k! All it did was confirm who the SWP's whipping boys are? Take a bow.

by Savinkov Wed Aug 16, 2006 14:40

What campaign did you run against the Deal? Why didnt you and the various organisations that didnt get involved in this campaign win workers over with your superior, principled and unyielding positions? This is a bad day for anyone who wanted a no vote. Your gloating shows that you have no interest in advancing the cause of the working class. You are just out to score cheap points.

by SP trade unionist Wed Aug 16, 2006 15:04

Socialist, you talk about the SWPs whipping boys, who do you mean. As far as I know the only people who called for the renegotiating of the deal was the SWP, others who were involved in the campaign with them didn't support this position and if you read the latest Socialist Worker they have a correction pointing out basically that people like Des Derwin and Eddie Conlon didn't support the SWP position.

by minty Wed Aug 16, 2006 16:36

I hate to be a killjoy but is it not a bit late now lads?

I mean, organinsing this campaign after siptu members (the largest union) have already voted in favour????

It seems to be a bit of a waste of time and energy.

by Sidney Reilly Wed Aug 16, 2006 16:45

The SWP only apologised to Des Derwin which leads you to think that Eddie supported the SWP position.

by Parvus Wed Aug 16, 2006 17:04

You left Savinkov down. There is no evidence to suggest that Eddie Conlon agrees with any of the SWPs positions. AFAIAA he was i n a tactical alliance with the SWP; the common cause being the defeat of towards 2016. Just as the aim of all previous campaigns was to defeat the contemporary National Agreement.