IWW and NUJ dispute with Tommy Sheridan + other MSP

no i don't know what you mean, you seem to be flapping about unable to recognise that the IWW is being used in a trot bun fight, that the literature that is being published about it is completely at odds with the IWW's principles and instead your trying to justify cos on some level it's got to do with contracts.

As has been said if it was just about contracts why the fuck would the IWW being publishing bullshit about "knowing who is ultimately responsible"? Is it perhaps because these SSP "workers" are actually party members first and proletarians last?

the IWW organised the office staff, then two MSPs wanted to join, then there was a big kerfuffle about whether or not they should join, then they were somehow allowed to join. and yes, it is ridiculous.

Would I be silly in assuming that these "office staff" (ie Trot full timers) weren't that opposed to letting their "bosses" (ie party comrades) into the same Union?

That sort of shit wouldn't fly so easily in fucking Unison nevermind the IWW.

i honestly can't get my head around how people in the IWW allowed this scenario to happen, and even worse why they are actively campaigning on this and giving it webspace.

Why weren't they just told to fuck off? I mean surely the fact that they have hire and fire powers as MSPs makes them fundamentally unsuitable for membership?

It might be best to split this into another thread, thinking about it.

because fundamentally the IWW is actually a fucking leftist hobby horse?

god knows. i wasn't a member then.

what you joined them despite the fact they let bosses join?

The details as to the joining of the MPs was never brought directly to the General Executive Board. We had known that two joined, but were unclear as to whether or not those members employed staff. There is no explicit Constitutional provision barring politicians, per se. There is a prohibition on paid party officials. Certainly, this had not happened for some time. Whether the Constitution will be amended to cover this situation in the future remains to be seen.

And from what I've heard, the SSP MPs do not (or did not) directly employ the staff other than on a legal piece of paper, as there is a staffing committee of the SSP which deals with disciplinary matters, hiring, and firing.

shock horror, human beings are flawed sometimes and make mistakes.

grow up revol.

mistakes are fine, allowing yourselves to be made complete twats of by some arsehole trots and spending quite some time denying there is a problem is something entirely different.

Also why the fuck can the IWW only refuse membership if it says so in the constitution? I mean they are only wide criteria, I mean it doesn't say anything about paedophile priests in the constitution but i'd like to think you'd be able to block their membership applications, no?

Also there is clearly a difference between an individual making a fuck up and a whole organisation wiping it's arse with principles, severing any critical faculties and pimping it over it's website like it's an actual workers struggle. Principles are there for very good reasons, to ensure you don't make such basic mistakes.

The IWW is not an anarchist organisation, but an industrial organisation of workers. Leftist, trotskyist and leninist workers are not proscribed by the IWW. The IWW doesn't say members can't belong to a political party, but does see the role of political parties at odds with the interests of working people. So the IWW doesn't endorse political parties. However, the IWW is not politically spot on all the time, only some of the time. The controversial existence of two MSPs in the IWW is one of our less spot on episodes.

Within the IWW the scottish parliament workers dispute has been well and truly looked into, discussed and the general conclusion is, the workers are in the right and a section of the employers have basically reneged on a collective agreement. It's now the IWW's job to defend and support those workers. In itself, the dispute is not a political matter, but a workplace issue between workers and their employers. That said, on a personal level, there may well be "trotskyist infighting" going on (although I'm uncertain as to what degree the SSP is actually "trotskyist"), but that would not be an IWW affair. Furthermore, I've seen no evidence of any attacks on the Solidarity Party from any IWW members involved in the dispute.

The basic issue is simple, though admittedly it's not uncontroversial - particularly for anarchists. But it's our job to back the workers, full stop.

So how is it that the IWW has ended up in dispute with Tommy Sheridan instead of the party that are sacking their members?

Serge, several wobblies have pulled the 'on a personal level' line, so why is the article on the IWW site titled "Sheridan betrays his own workers", when Sheridan is not the employer?

By the IWW's own acknowlegdement those MSPS were bosses vis a vis a collective agreement, as such they should have been banned from membership as standard, I fail to see fuck all controversial about it, it's really quite simple they shouldn't be there.

Except the contracts weren't signed with individual MSP's or even sections but collectively, therefore their issue should be with the employers collective as a whole. Of course the fact is that this isn't anywhere near being a simple matter of a workers struggle but political infighting of Trots, both the "bosses" and "workers" whose Party allegiance comes before class antagonism, which means they undermine the first principle of the IWW.

Just to say, I don't disagree that our role here should be to back the workers, but it is deeply problematic that the IWW is persuing Sheridan when it is the SSP who are the employers here.

How is this any different to a company sacking a load of people because they've seen a dip in profits?

Come back Subversion all is forgiven!

because they were his workers (or rather, the SSP's collective workers) when he and rosemary byrne left. also that article was written by an IWW member, not sanctioned by some all-powerful junta of IWW overlords who check every single word before it's published. this isn't some fucking stalinist party y'know

jesus. i've wasted half my day on this shit.

ah right so youse just let any old shite go on your website complete with a call for a demostration?

Also don't you understand the nature of a collective, it means they weren't his or hers employees, but rather the collective was and is their employer.

Seems like youse want your cake and ate it. On one hand it's claimed the MSP's aren't the employers because it's a collective and yet on the other the collective isn't responsible rather it's Sheridan and Byrne.

Utterly pathetic.

Therefore the IWW should be in dipute with the SSP.
Dev

ftony, i'm not on about "every single word" - the title makes it quite clear that Sheridan is being attacked rather than the employers per se (the SSP, as you say). it's not the fact the IWW or it's individual members are fallible that's problematic, but that they seem ready to ditch its first principle (and class politics) in defence of the organisation's practice. i can't get my head round it

Unless of course the workers actually identify with their bosses and have so renounced their antagonistic relationship in favour of the ideological party, in which case they shouldn't be in the IWW.

I saw Joe Hill last night he told me to pass this on.

Deleted two posts coz they just contained insults. Keep it nice please.

you're right ed, sorry. screw this, the real action's outside the computer...

outside the computer and in the rebellious corridors of the Scottish Parliament apparently.

bloody hell, you just couldn't help but come back for one more snipe

Which is why we don't have an ideological litmus test for membership, and also why we don't kick people out just because they think they have more in common with their bosses than our preamble would indicate. Members don't have to agree with the preamble, but they do have to follow the policies set out in the Constitution, which are not very onerous.

Revol, chill out. You were pretty good up until this page. I take your opinion seriously but there is honestly no need to get nasty. I think ftony makes a fairly valid point, and I actually agree that this entire mess was created by a desire to try and 'be a real union' even if it meant compromise. But this isn't some betrayal of principles of kronstadt like proportions, nor is it a revolutionary struggle. I also think the IWW has remained neutral in the dispute just because they are putting the most pressure on T.S. and R.M. publically doesn't mean they have done anything to support the SSP.

As far as I can tell the Brittish ROC has done the right thing given the situation- supported their workers that were facing the sack. To not have done so would have tarnished the IWW _far_ more than being associated with the SSP in my opinion, they have an obligation to those who hold red cards, especially in a job shop.

cos you were an idiotic lil cunt to Ed in the pub at the bookfair?