IWW and NUJ dispute with Tommy Sheridan + other MSP

i agree, to an extent (although the whole situation is caught up in the wider picture of there being employers and employees full stop), but whether or not it is an individual or class one they've asked the union to help and that's what we're doing. it is still a breach of contract, whether or not the IWW is being 'used' as a pawn between two groups of trots (i understand how it can look like this, but i don't think it is the case). it is a genuine dispute, and that fact cannot be argued with.

devrim, this may have just been a slip on your part, but when else in recent times has the IWW's reputation been tarnished? alas, right now in the UK we have very little reputation to tarnish anyway

your niavity is touching.

your banality is boring.

Is it a genuine dispute? I think that that is far from clear. It seems to me that these people are not involved in a dispute with their current employer. They are involved in a dispute between their current employer, and their ex-employer, on the side of their current employer.

Have you seen the contract, ftony? Do you know exactly what is says? Who is it a breach of contract by? I would suspect that if it is between the SSP group, and the workers, the SSP group would be the ones breaking the contract if they issue redundancies. This doesn't seem as clear as you make it out to be.

First, it seems a bit bizarre, the IWW pretending to be a union when in fact it is little more than a network of leftists who would like to be a union. I believe that this is your only job branch in the UK. Second, it seems a bit strange that when they 'ask for help', you don't investigate the circumstances behind it.

It is not so important to me that they are Trotskyites. I didn't even mention it. I didn't even mention the fact that this tendency has a history of issuing workers with redundancy notices, and then trying to blame other people. Workers should not be involved in a faction fight between their bosses, which is what I feel is happening here. The fact that they are Trotskyites just adds to the 'spice'.

Yes, maybe its not phrased well. Please read ‘…further tarnishes the IWW’s historical good name’.

Devrim

I can't believe that there are people who can't see problems with this kind of shit? I mean as me and Devrim have said a number of times, it is a dispute in which the "workers" are actually putting their leverage behind their "bosses" against another set of "bosses". If this was a genuine workers struggle then the point of contention would be the contract and the other stuff would be superflous, and since the contracts were with the collective of SSP politicians and not individuals then it seems strange that these "workers" in a simple issue of workers rights are so concerned about their bosses situation.

of course the reason is that their role as workers comes secondary to their party membership.

I was just looking at the IWW's website trying to find a bit of back ground to this incident, and found this:

http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/061115-solidarity/index.html

What is going on here? Are there really two MSPs in the IWW? I mean leaving aside the fact that these are professional politicians, aren't these people actually the employer's of your other members?

Devrim

is this for real?

i thought i remembered some IWW members on here explicitly saying that the MSP's were not members just the parliamentry workers?

fuck that IWW piece clearly takes the side of some MSP/employers (wobblies no less) against sheridan. jesus.

you said yourself that they could take the solidarity folk to an industrial tribunal. you're just contradicting yourself.

have you seen the piece of paper where it says that murder is illegal? i doubt it. even despite your suggestion that the IWW isn't a proper union (in a way i admit you are right, in a way i'd disagree and suggest that you're being deliberately confrontational, but that is for elsewhere maybe)the fact that the NUJ, a 'proper' union agrees that they have breached the terms of their employment contract suggests that they actually have.

the IWW actually did investigate the circumstances quite carefully. we're small, and that makes us vulnerable - we have to be careful.

generally, yes, but when the workers are going to suffer as a result, we've got an obligation to help.

for the IWW, that is true. we all know full well what the loyalties of the individuals are.

they're concerned about their bosses' situation because it affects their own. they may also, on an individual level, be concerned with the parties involved, but that is up to their conscience and has nothing to do with the matter in hand. the party politics is merely a (really fucking annoying, as you've kindly illustrated) side-note that detracts from the actual employment situation.

well doesn't this go against the IWW's famous opening preamble? The working classes and the bosses have nothing in common?

As has been pointed out if a group of McDonald workers got the sack after some shareholder fucked off in a dodgy manner, would the McDonalds workers literature give such great concern to the circumstances their bosses where in? I'd like to think fucking not.

Also would you care to expand on why exactly there are fucking MSP's in the IWW?

Yeah, for the record the presence of the parliamentarians I think is justifiably far more controversial and I'm not sure how much I support that. However as for the office staff I think they are entitled to paychecks 'till may '07 as their contract stipulates. I can see why Devrim wouldn't agree with any of this, but he doesn't think unions play any useful role at all. But the simple fact is that the IWW is continuing to not be a 'real' union in the UK if it doesn't stand up for its members, and it's a pawn of political intrigue if it does.

look you idoitic lil cunt, the analogies do apply in that they show their relationship with their boss isn't a simple matter and doesn't fit into the IWW's criteria.

I really couldn't give two fucks whether they were trots or tories, the problem is their relationship to their employer.

Now the issue of the IWW having MSP's is even more fucking baffling.

Revol, what do you think about the analogies I drew about office staff for political parties here in Canada, or unionisation attempts of union staffers in the USA apply? Do those apply? I will be the first to say that representing these workers is hardly revolutionary activism, but sometimes being a union is just as much about improving conditions and standing up for your rights when a revolution isn't on the horizon and I think these workers are being screwed.

...anyways it's 5:30am here and I am off to work....

i don't support the MSPs being members of the IWW at all and i think it not only clouds this particular issue but also goes against the IWW's principles as a class-struggle organisation.

very true. i heard they have webbed feet

they've got something on their website i think. by the way, one of the SSP workers went with solidarity. and guess what - they're a wobbly too.

you're right EW, we may as well just stop bothering with anything.

No, what I said was:

The thing about the contact, and more specifically who it is actually between is an important part of the question here. Why are they in dispute with Sheridan and Byrne and not the other four MSPs, oh sorry 'fellow workers'? Are there valid reasons for this? What a 'proper union' like the NUJ says doesn't bother me at all. I would guess that the FoC is a member of the SSP, and is using this to discredit the splitters.

In fact I would say that this is not an industrial dispute at all, but a political faction fight. The workers are not in dispute with their employers, but actually in alliance with their employers in the same union.

Devrim

I've answered this shit already;

If these staffers were not members of the political party and treated it like just another job then i'd think fair enough, all other things being equal, ie it isn't some fecking Nazi group.

I wouldn't even have so much of a problem if the "workers" were involved in a straight fight over their contracts, hwoever it is obvious that they are not in opposition to their current bosses but a number of bosses who have since left, leaving their current bosses in some difficulty.

I am not disagreeing with this. I am simply asking why the dispute is not with the people who are actually employing them, the SSP Parliamentary Group.

Yes, but I would support workers in struggle fighting for their own class interests whether they are in a union, or not. I am not sure that this is happening here.

Devrim

no, it is both.

i, and the vast majority of the IWW i would expect, believe it to be an industrial dispute first, and a political faction fight second.

the word 'could' does not equal the word 'can'. 'could' is in the conditional tense, which is a tense of possibility, not necessity. we were actually saying the same thing.

it should, particularly in the legal context of what we were saying about contractual obligations (as well as your sniping little remarks (which i've tried very hard to ignore, because i'm a nice person) about the IWW being unworthy to be called a union.)

So you are admitting it's a political faction fight between employers as to who should be paying the wages?

This is a farce!

no. i'm saying there is political in-fightiing involved on an individual level. no-one could disagree with that. but the overriding fact remains that it is a breach of contract which, if not sorted out, will result in workers paying the price.

are you utterly incapable of grasping the argument!??

the point is that the political infighting takes it away from bring solely about the contract, because if it was about the contract then they would be in struggle with the MSP collective as a whole and not just the two renegades.

when exactly is that going to sink in.

now now, don't get your knickers in a twist. of course i understand the argument. much of what you're saying is fairly valid. but you need to understand the situation: TS and RB's decision to leave the SSP created this little mess. therefore it is their responsibility to deal with the consequences of their actions. however, the SSP is also part of it all, and both parties have been involved in negotiations and the workers have been putting pressure on the SSP to sort out this mess too. however, the fact remains that the situation was created by the two MSPs leaving the SSP.

are bosses' squabbles the business of workers?

for fuck sake that;s my point, since when the fuck do the IWW give two fucks what set of bastard bosses are responsible for fucking over their workers?

For one last fucking time, the workers and bosses have NOTHING in common, that means you don't seek any form of alliance with your boss against another.

When a company goes into recievership because some investors have fucked off do you envisage backing the rest of the board against them?

it's utterly pathetic that you think the IWW should be anywhere near such bourgeois political squabbles, infact this is a kind of social partnership that a scab union like USDAW would be embarrassed to be involved in.

it just seems the IWW are so desperate to be taken seriously as a "real union" that they'll take on anyone and any struggle, even if it does fuck all for the strength and independent of the working class, even if it means allowing in fucking MP's and allowing itself to be used by trot factions.

dude, you asked the question in the first place, not me - i was just contextualising it for you.

and that is why i don't agree with having politicians in our union.

i think we've gone over everything now. the IWW supports the workers whatever, i support the workers whatever, you support the workers whatever, it's just the context and definition of 'whatever' thet we're arguing over.

You remember (kind of) correctly, young grasshopper: -

But, Oliver then went on to say.....

So it looks like the IWW organised the office staff only (i.e. there is a job branch), but MSPs were free to join -- and, it would seem, did so.

Link

no i don't support the workers "whatever", not when they are a bunch of trotsyite fuckwits attempting to give some proletarian creditibility to their pathetic faction fights, not when they publish material that not only fails to challenge their "bosses" (Party comrades) but actively seeks to defend them and their "difficult position".

The IWW should not have MSP's in it nor their full time employess, especially not when they both share a common interest in the "Party" that overrides the basic class antagonism!

well OT does live on the other side of the world so he's not expected to know everything. there was a lot of fighting over whether the MSPs should be able to join and ultimately the wrong decision was taken.

and to revol- you know what i mean. don't twist what was obviously meant to be a friendly statement.

Edit: just saw ftony's post above.

How the hell can the IWW allow a group of bosses to join their union? That's not just a bad decision, that's fucking appalling.