Actually beltov your desire to bash the unions about absolutely everything is just leading you to believing what you're reading without actually being fully aware of the relevant issues.
This equal pay stuff isn't cut and dried. It's an absolute minefield.
Basically, what has happened is that unions have been launching equal pay claims in predominantly public sector workplaces to get back pay for women who've been paid less than men doing similar jobs over the past God knows how many years.
In fighting these claims, unions have used different methods, from legal action to industrial action. Many women workers have won payouts of tens of thousands of pounds. A lot of organisations are still having these claims going through.
This is where it gets complicated, and I'm not 100% sure on all of the details, but this is my understanding.
Many of these claims have been won not by lawsuits, but by things like industrial action, or collective bargaining. In using these methods which rely on all workers claiming together, some individuals have missed out on getting full back pay, due to collective agreements being signed, say after bargaining the employers offer the workers £5,000 each. Then, continuing this example, the union agrees this (likely following a ballot of the members involved), and everyone gets the money.
What's happening now is that some private law practices have targeted places where unions have one equal pay payouts for members, mass leafleting the workforce. These have encouraged workers who might have been legally entitled to more than the collectively agreed pay out to sue the union for accepting less for them.
the problem here is, from the pro-worker perspective, that if the workers had launched their claim initially through the no-win no fee lawyers, they would have actually received less than the union got them - because the lawyers take a huge cut out the winnings, which the unions do not. Also, a lot of the union claims were reliant on worker sticking together, or taking action, rather than individualised lawsuits.
This case was a big test case of the ability of no-win no fee lawyers to sue the unions, and now that the unions have lost this whole equal pay thing is going to get even more complicated and individualised.
People on here will know that I'm not an uncritical cheerleader of unions, but this type of ill informed, right-wing union bashing doesn't help anyone, and actually damages a decent working class critique of the unions.
I read that yesterday. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Union's mediate between labour and capital. This is a good example (well bad if you are a low paid care worker) of how union's have swallowed management's line about affordability even though their members could get more and even worse have not pursued equal pay claims. I think there is an even bigger problem than normal with UK unions in that many leading them now were first involved in the 1980s and experienced the endless defeats of the labour movement during that period which saw membership fall from 13m to around 7m (despite more people being in work). Many of them are shit scared of upsetting Labour and doing anything that might cause major problems - like finding money to address equal pay claims. Labour, of course, are not interested in this issue. Rather than forcing companies to undertake equal pay audits they are proposing to give women the right to find out how much male workers earn. No wonder the gap between the pay of men and women is still so great.
Steven, that wasn't Beltov, it was baboon. I can't say I know too much about the facts of this particular case. The unions prove their real function, not in court cases or individual disputes where they act like social workers and counsellors of those workers in difficulty (a bit like the priests of old did) but in their energetic opposition to any kind of effective working class struggle.
Anyway, from the bits baboon read out, the judge did not criticise the unions for being mistaken or incompetent but for being manipulative, which is slightly different. As for the "accepting pleas of poverty", this is classic union territory which I've seen for myself. The last time we had a threatened closure at work, the unions were indistinguishable from the management in saying this would strengthen the organisation - they even supported the withdrawal of bonuses from the rest of us, in the name of solidarity with those being laid off! It's hardly a surprise to see these anti-proletarian organisations doing the same in court cases.
baboon wrote:
A High Court judge pointing out the divisive and anti-working class nature of the trade unions.i'm saddened to see the ICC lining up with the ultra-left of capital
Ah you can make your snide comments, but clearly lord justice maurice kay or ''marxist maurice'' as he's known to close comrades is a proletarian hero.
Thanks for the information Steven.
This is not the unions necessarily being anti-working class. Single cases take longer to bring and cost a lot more. It's easier for the unions to do group stuff and in many workplaces people will be on similar salaries so have similar amounts owed. Of course we should get as much as we can but this is not necessarily nunions being actively working class just seeking a simple way to do things. Also these settlements mean they can give out headline figures for amounts they've won for their members which looks good.
A lot of this 'group stuff' will be a result of public sector Job (re-)Evaluation won't it? Although this may have the effect of reducing inequalities to an extent, is there any evidence about what this has done to the total wage bill of the organisations that have introduced JE? In my workplace we all got JE'd a couple of years ago but this was at same time as introducing performance related pay using an 'open-range' policy which gives the employer a lot more control over the total wage bill.
See http://www.eridlc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=textbook.chpt16.
Not at all taking away from women who have been underpaid and denied bonuses for years (and still are of course) and have benefited from JE, overall it seems like employers are doing OK out of these changes, especially if the legal settlements (which I understand come partly from not having sorted out 'fair' JE quickly enough in public sector) are lower than might be expected.
Most JEs seem to result in paycuts, hidden or otherwise. In my workplace, officially, most people stayed the same in terms of their current wage although some of the lower admin people were raised a grade, and those on admin grades were also given an extra day or two holiday. I heard rumours of people who had pay cuts but I never found out if they were true.
However, it later emerged that they had effectively capped the grading system. What this meant was that if, under the previous system, you were, for example, a "Grade 3" (aprox £13,000 - £17,500) you were transfered onto a "Grade C" which officially had the same salary boundary. However, the upper points of the salary range now became discretionary, meaning that people had to overperform in order to get management recognition needed to advance up the grade points. Previously, you simply went up a spinal point every year until you reached the top. Moreover, in the new system you can only achieve a discretionary point a minimum of every two years.
So although this seemed (to some) like a pay-rise, it was achieved only by capping the wages of most of the workers and all the future workers that the organisation will employ. Needless to say, this agreement was enthusiastically supported by all the unions (who had a major role constructing it) under the guise of a long-running campaign for "fair pay". In practice, it was robbing Peter to pay Paul and represented no real increase in terms of wages for the mass of the workers - it was simply a redistribution of what we already had.
Compared to other exercises in the local area, we actually got off lightly. The local councils have seen outright paycuts, which appear to have been very carefully managed by employers and unions (which again supported the plans). At a local rally I went to, during the local government strike, there was real anger about the exercise (amongst other things) but it was all conflated into the union strike campaign, conveniently ignoring the fact that they were the ones who helped implement it!
A lot of this 'group stuff' will be a result of public sector Job (re-)Evaluation won't it?
no, that's not where these have originally come from. The recent spate of job evaluations in the public sector - single status pay reviews in local government - came about as a result of lawsuits launched by the unions on behalf of women members following the introduction of rights to equal pay.
Single status reviews are occurring nominally to ensure equal pay in the future. Having said that, while undertaking some of these reviews some more cases of unequal pay have become apparent.
Although this may have the effect of reducing inequalities to an extent, is there any evidence about what this has done to the total wage bill of the organisations that have introduced JE? In my workplace we all got JE'd a couple of years ago but this was at same time as introducing performance related pay using an 'open-range' policy which gives the employer a lot more control over the total wage bill.
See http://www.eridlc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=textbook.chpt16.Not at all taking away from women who have been underpaid and denied bonuses for years (and still are of course) and have benefited from JE, overall it seems like employers are doing OK out of these changes, especially if the legal settlements (which I understand come partly from not having sorted out 'fair' JE quickly enough in public sector) are lower than might be expected.
I can't really comment much outside of local government, but here the way these reviews are going depend largely on the financial status of the Council, and the level of organisation of the workforce. So some councils have used it as an excuse to try to slash the wage bill - there have been strikes over this in places like Birmingham and Argyle recently. In some places where workers are well organised it has gone quite well in workers favour. In Islington they cut off the bottom few scale points, so I believe the minimum wage at that Council is now something like £9.20 per hour, and only two people (out of 10,000) were graded down.
At my council the exercise is still ongoing, they have tried to package to regrading with other measures such as introducing performance related pay, and abolishing incremental annual leave entitlements. They dropped that after we (the union) rejected it out of hand.
This equal pay stuff is opening a real minefield elsewhere though.
In the past while doing restructurings, employers could often buy off resistance by offering payment protection to workers who they graded down. However, apparently this has now also been ruled illegal on the basis of age discrimination, so it seems that employers won't be able to offer payment protection. On the negative side this means more people face cuts to their pay. On the flipside, employers won't be able to buy the compliance of current workers to the increased exploitation of future ones, so they will be more likely to resist. It will be interesting to see how this affects things...
I think this storey shows how the Unions through the 'Single status agreement' in public services have generally managed to turn a genuine 'equal pay ' demand into a pretty divisive issue amongst many workers, although I accept from what Steven says that these problems may have been avoided in more militant areas.
I think the rumblings over this issue are more widespread than people might think as the Unions (as in Manchester) have done their best to keep the lid on any rebellion.
I mentioned earlier threatened action in Leeds and Bolton as well as actual action in Birmingham over threatened downgradings and even sackings - I am sure this is more widespread.
I think the issue of equal pay is very likely to cause divisions, it's based on the idea that men have been paid more than women. So of course the employers are trying to blame greedy overpaid male workers, and would rather just cut their pay than level up women's.
We've got some coverage of other single status disputes here: http://libcom.org/tags/single-status
I think the key problem with what the unions have done here is agreed for single status agreements to be done by each local authority area. This has let workers get divided up so that the weaker ones can get their pay cut and the stronger ones won't be able to have a knock-on effect nationally.
Steven above suggests that the trade union question is wider than the equal pay stitch-up and collusion with the bosses, so obvious that even a high court judge could see it (above).
He says my post is ill-infornmed right wing union bashing and undermines a working class critique of the uniions.
Make then the question more relevant to the class struggle overall.
Do the unions, in some way or the other, represent the interests of the working class? Not only do the unions not represent the interests of the working class, they are integral components of its class enemy; defenders of the national state. There were a few notable exceptions but,. on the whole, the trade unions supported their national states, ie, imperialism, in preparing for and fighting WWI. The same for the intder-war years and for WWII and its aftermath.
You can argue about details here and there, but the fundamental role of the unions is to be national institutions that cannot represent the interests of the working class.
They are, overall, funded by the state, integral parts of the state, part of the war economy. Of course they've got be "for the workers", sometimes "militant" and this role has been practiced for decades because they wouldn't be a lot of good for the bourgeoisie if they were too transparant. But the national interest is never far away from their concerns and fundamental to their functioning.
They are not "negotiators" between capital and labour as if they stand outside the system. There are only two classes and I have no doubt which one of them the unions belong to.
Baboon, I think Steven was really saying that you were seeming to accept uncritically a right-wing attack on unions due to your political opposition to them. He specifically said it was about opposing them on a class basis.
Although I've got little love for unions attacks on them are often motivated by anti-working class sentiments.
Steven above suggests that the trade union question is wider than the equal pay stitch-up and collusion with the bosses, so obvious that even a high court judge could see it (above).
He says my post is ill-infornmed right wing union bashing and undermines a working class critique of the uniions.Make then the question more relevant to the class struggle overall.
Do the unions, in some way or the other, represent the interests of the working class?
no. But you can argue this without lies, right-wing distortions or paranoiac conspiracy nonsense. It's so frustrating that so many people around the ICC do not seem to be able to do this.
The problem is Steven that if you really wanted to make an effective, relevant critique of the unions that's much better informed than stuff the ICC puts out, if you were really convinced that they were not proletarian organisations and that they don't in some way represent the interests of the working class, you would not be a shop steward. It's OK not to be convinced of any of these things, but don't approach this discussion with a kind of 'oh, of course I know unions are not working class organisations, but your arguments are much too crude to convince people who aren't as clear as me'. You're not convinced, and that's the debate.
Steven's 26th August post above, is a de-facto defence of the trade unions as organisations of the working class.
Jef's position along the lines of 'I haven't got much time for the unions, but...' is a common one that refuses to take a clear position. Joseph K calls a proletarian position on the unions an 'off-the-shelf anti-union rant', while adding that the unions are 'not proletarian organisations'. What are they then Joseph?
I think, for communists and anyone else who claims to be representative of working class political positions in any way, the role that the trade unions play for their national states and, implicitly and explicitly, for imperialism, is a fundamental question. This is the question we should be discussing because it has fundamental political importance for the working class. The trade unions are not somehow outside of the state apparatus, independent of the wider world and its consequences just getting along trying to make improvements in working class conditions. That's the ideology of the bourgeoisie - both its right wing and its left wing. The unions are not just not a lot of good but better than nothing. They are active players, active factors in the class war and they can only be on one side.
The fact that the trade unions, internationally and almost in total, supported the war aims of imperialism and worker killing worker, is not an "off-the-shelf rant" but a matter of historical record that is absolutely pertinent to this discussion. The unions haven't changed their class allegiance since world war one. they are part and parcel of the capitalist state.
Joseph K calls a proletarian position on the unions an 'off-the-shelf anti-union rant', while adding that the unions are 'not proletarian organisations'. What are they then Joseph?
they're capitalist organisations for managing the labour force. but if you can't see how replying to a specific set of points with a generic position comes off as a bit mental then i do worry a little.
But you can argue this without lies, right-wing distortions or paranoiac conspiracy nonsense.
oh come on, you're acting as if baboon is cheering for a court closing down a union or running a campaign in support of the judge, he's merely pointing out something interesting and ironic, you perfectly know that he doesn't support the court or the judge, obviously courts and judges are as much the part of the bourgeois state as much as the unions are.
on the other hand:
""A 57 year old care worker said "I have been paying my subs for over 11 years and this was the first and only time I have gone to them over my equal pay claim.... What I found was, I counted for nothing". ...
Another care worker and former Unison rep said "For the last 3 decades the unions have been telling their members how they are going to fight for equal pay and nothing has happened".""
omg, how horrible of these workers to say those things, lies, right wing distortions and paranoiac conspiracy nonsense!
jeez...
they're capitalist organisations for managing the labour force.
that sounds quite clear.
Although I've got little love for unions attacks on them are often motivated by anti-working class sentiments.
when the police attacks a "union demonstration" that is full of unionized workers, or when the boss attacks workers trying to be unionized, yeah, those are in reality attacks on the working class, but then again they are not really attacks on the unions, at least in any meaningful sense. similarly, in a fight between one political faction of the ruling class and trade unions supporting another faction, this is not a fight in which the working class has anything to gain by joining. nor is for example an investigation of corruption on trade-unions an attack on the working class, although it is an attack on the trade unions. this doesn't mean, of course, that it is in the interests of the workers to support the state investigating the union. unions have their solid place within the bourgeoisie, and when they got attacked themselves, it is generally due to a faction fight within the bourgeoisie and the sides they pick. it is important to stress that attacks on the working class and attacks on trade unions are completely different things, although an attack on one can be presented as an attack on the other for this or that reason.
The fact that the trade unions, internationally and almost in total, supported the war aims of imperialism and worker killing worker, is not an "off-the-shelf rant" but a matter of historical record that is absolutely pertinent to this discussion. The unions haven't changed their class allegiance since world war one. they are part and parcel of the capitalist state.
Oh give us a break, so your critique equates to what in terms of practice then? Do you think steven should leave the union, how would this make him any better off? If you haven't got any practical suggestions then they're just off the shelf rants, especially since its been proven already in this thread that none of you know what the fuck your talking about when it comes to this issue.
when the police attacks a "union demonstration" that is full of unionized workers, or when the boss attacks workers trying to be unionized, yeah, those are in reality attacks on the working class, but then again they are not really attacks on the unions, at least in any meaningful sense. similarly, in a fight between one political faction of the ruling class and trade unions supporting another faction, this is not a fight in which the working class has anything to gain by joining. nor is for example an investigation of corruption on trade-unions an attack on the working class, although it is an attack on the trade unions. this doesn't mean, of course, that it is in the interests of the workers to support the state investigating the union. unions have their solid place within the bourgeoisie, and when they got attacked themselves, it is generally due to a faction fight within the bourgeoisie and the sides they pick. it is important to stress that attacks on the working class and attacks on trade unions are completely different things, although an attack on one is mentioned as an attack on the other for this or that reason.
I mean take a read of this by leo, its not even legible let alone practical. Its just reads like some shrieking trot defending some random postion their organisation happens to hold in defiance of whatever the reality of the situation is.
your post is a perfect example of an empty rant. no responses, no arguements, nothing worth responding to.
If you haven't got any practical suggestions
there are practical suggestions but are you really interested in hearing about them?
its not even legible
sorry for english being my second language you chauvinist scumbag.
apology accepted wink
And your practical solution for steven is what exactly?
there is no practical solution for individuals, and no we don't tell unionized workers to quit the unions en masse. it is quite a pointless thing to do.
what matters is the collective struggle of the working class. i think the first step would be workers from different trade-unions, and non-unionized workers, and workers from different sectors etc. coming together as much as possible and taking their struggle in their hands and out of the hands of the union by discussing and deciding what to do independently. then, of course, comes the formation of workers collective and independent organs for controlling their own struggle, such as open assemblies, and workers' councils. this process is a process of workers destroying the unions.
if he's a shop steward though, i would tell this: sooner or later his interests as a worker and his position being a shop steward will clash. people who know more about the history of the struggles of the workers in England in the last forty years can give examples to this. i could give examples in regards to struggles here which no one heard about, but i gotta go have breakfast now.
Quote:
when the police attacks a "union demonstration" that is full of unionized workers, or when the boss attacks workers trying to be unionized, yeah, those are in reality attacks on the working class, but then again they are not really attacks on the unions, at least in any meaningful sense. similarly, in a fight between one political faction of the ruling class and trade unions supporting another faction, this is not a fight in which the working class has anything to gain by joining. nor is for example an investigation of corruption on trade-unions an attack on the working class, although it is an attack on the trade unions. this doesn't mean, of course, that it is in the interests of the workers to support the state investigating the union. unions have their solid place within the bourgeoisie, and when they got attacked themselves, it is generally due to a faction fight within the bourgeoisie and the sides they pick. it is important to stress that attacks on the working class and attacks on trade unions are completely different things, although an attack on one is mentioned as an attack on the other for this or that reason.I mean take a read of this by leo, its not even legible let alone practical. Its just reads like some shrieking trot defending some random postion their organisation happens to hold in defiance of whatever the reality of the situation is.
It's perfectly legible and comprehendible to me. It is clearly -- to anyone in their right mind -- NOT like some shrieking trot defending ..... Why not actually argue against what you find so objectionable here? And if you can't draw any practical conclusions from this, then I have to wonder about your cognitive capacities.Tbh, you are the one who is coming off as loony here. And no, I'm not a supporter of the ICC, although I do agree generally with their position that the trade unions came under the control of the state a long time ago, but were originally proletarian organisations..
I also think Leo's attempt at left wing communist subtlety was pretty reasonable and the recognition that simply arguing for workers to leave the Unions pointless, (though I think it makes sense in workplaces with large union memberships for pro-revolutionaries to actually join the relevant Union for practical reasons - a position not as I understand it supported by the ICC. Despite the British Unions political affiliations, I don't see this as being the same as joining a capitalist political organisation).
Unions today are clearly capitalist organisations, which however need to maintain a level of working class, workplace support to survive, which is where the seeming overlaps in the differing interests sometimes arise.
As to the role of shop stewards in the British Unions this is clearly one of representing the Union organisation to the workers. This isn't the same as saying all shop stewards are somehow personally anti working class. Many are genuine militants, but in times of critical struggle the best soon find out that it is impossible to 'face both ways at once' as it were.
Having said all this the particular reference to the Unions being a part of the capitalist 'state' depends on a particular left communist definition of the modern state not common parlance amonst all pro-revolutionaries let alone the average worker.
I'm sure all the above points have been better explored on some earlier threads. Perhaps some kind Libcom organiser could put up a couple of relevant links??
The limited, and limiting nature of trade unions was clearly laid out during the rise and expansion of capitalism and while never revolutionary, clearly represented major interests of the working class.
Their betrayal to the interests of the bourgeoisie prior to and during WWI is not trifling matter and has enormous significance for the working class. We have had one hundred years of experience of the unions and they stand condemned. From a revolutionary point of view that is no need at all for any ambiguity on the question. From the day to day point of view, that Joseph limits himself to, the unions, and their general activity and propaganda, is just another aspect of management. As evident as this is, it is an aspect that stretches to very high levels of the state apparatus, which permeates its work of division and control downwards.
It's the illusions in trade unions that keep the latter going as weapons of the bourgeoisie. The illusions are widespread and dominant in the working class and won't be broken soon. That though is no reason to maintain these illusions in any way. On the contrary.
Thatcher, the left wing of capitalism's bogey person, was not a "union basher" at all. To take on and defeat the working class in Britain, Thatcher first of all struck deals with various unions, entered into solemn agreements with them (or rather the clique at the head of the state did) and when the deed was done (the isolation of the miners' strike from other workers - and vice-versa) the unions or the indiviuals involved were duly rewarded. Every major strike in every country the trade unions have sabotaged. Just one example: after the Gate Gourmet strike at Heathrow, a strike that brought workers from different industries in a show of solidarity, the unions organised a cabin crew strike. The result of this strike, that promised a reprise from Gate Gourmet, was the isolation of the workers one from the other and a reduction of wages overall of several thousand pounds per worker. This outcome was hailed as a victory for the workers by some on these boards.
I'm sure all the above points have been better explored on some earlier threads. Perhaps some kind Libcom organiser could put up a couple of relevant links??
Here's one that developed into a discussion of the nature of unions;
http://libcom.org/forums/history/1968-06022008
Unions today are clearly capitalist organisations, which however need to maintain a level of working class, workplace support to survive, which is where the seeming overlaps in the differing interests sometimes arise.
....
Having said all this the particular reference to the Unions being a part of the capitalist 'state' depends on a particular left communist definition of the modern state not common parlance amonst all pro-revolutionaries let alone the average worker.I'm sure all the above points have been better explored on some earlier threads. Perhaps some kind Libcom organiser could put up a couple of relevant links??
I find this view interesting, that unions are "clearly capitalist organisations", but not necessarily part of (or controlled by) the capitalist 'state'. So would that mean that they are 'private' capitalist organisations? I'm not sure if this is a tenable position or not, but would be interested in looking at any previous discussion of it at libcom. Has this position been elaborated or defended anywhere else? I am assuming, Spikymike, that you don't share the "particular left communist definition of the modern state", or am I wrong?
Spikymike
I appreciate your point that we can have a tendency at at times to simply assume that everyone understands our definition of state capitalism. In some way the question of the nature of state capitalism is more important that the question of the unions in themselves. This was brought home very clearly a couple of weeks ago when discussing with a local Trotskyist who asked what our definition of the unions was. He sort of got what was said about the unions, but our conception of state capitalism he could not get his head around. So may be we need to explain our conception of state capitalism more, but unfortunately this cannot be done without mentioning the D word, which is the theoretical bedrock of our conception of state capitalism and unions, and which causes a certain amount of heated debate!
Our position on members belonging to unions, is that if there is a closed shop clearly they have to join, others wise we do not belong to the unions.
High School students struck and marched across Germany yesterday in protest against classroom overcrowding, lack of teachers, and the pressure of examinations.
The story of a covert US Government housing policy - conceived in the aftermath of the 1960s ghetto riots - to remove concentrations of potentially rebellious Blacks and other poor people from the inner city and disperse them in small groups to the suburbs.
From the Observer 25.8.8:
"The courts have lambasted trade unions for misleading their low-paid women members and settling their equal pay claims for too little..."
Around 150,000 workers are affected
"The Court of Appeal recently upheld an employment tribunal's finding that the GMB union 'rushed headlong' into an ill-considered back-pay deal ... and 'accepted too readily the councils's plea of poverty'"...
"Lord Justice Marice Kay, quoting the earlier ruling, said that the GMB ' failed the claimants a fully informed choice about the options', and that claimants were not told that what they were being offered was 'substantially less than they might recieve following successful litigation'"....
"The judge also said that there 'had been not only a failure to provide full information, but also positive manipulation' of 'relatively unsophisticated claimants'".
...
A 57 year old care worker said "I have been paying my subs for over 11 years and this was the first and only time I have gone to them over my equal pay claim.... What I found was, I counted for nothing". ...
Another care worker and former Unison rep said "For the last 3 decades the unions have been telling their members how they are going to fight for equal pay and nothing has happened".
A High Court judge pointing out the divisive and anti-working class nature of the trade unions.