Industrial Unions in the UK
Dec 19 2006 09:37
Hi. I just wanted to know if anyone knew of any industrial unions in the UK, as in unions which try to organise everyone in a workplace, and every workplace in their industry? Obviously I know about the IWW, but are there any unions that organise on an industrial basis without neccessarily being explicitly revolutionary?
Dec 19 2006 11:05
#2
martinh wrote:
Most obvious is the RMT and until it was effectively smashed the NUM.Regards,
Martin
I was thinking of those two, but....
In the pits, there was always NACODS (pit-deputies union) as well as the NUM -- so the NUM organised all miners, but not everyone concerned with the mining industry.
As for the RMT, there's the TSSA (Transport Salaried Staff Association)
Quote:
Founded in 1897, we represent 33,000 administrative, managerial, professional and technical workers in the railway, London Underground, the travel trade, ports and ferries.
I'm not sure whether the RMT would also attempt to organise/recruit people in "TSSA-jobs" -- if not, they're not organising industrially.
In (school-)teaching, teachers tend to be in the NUT or NAS/UWT, whereas classroom assistants are often in Unison....
What about Unison in the NHS? I know there are other unions there (the RCN for instance), but do Unison attempt to organise industrially in the NHS?
Dec 19 2006 11:38
#3
Also FBU.
Button I think a lot would like to but can't because there are laws against unions poaching others' members.
Dec 19 2006 11:41
#4
UNISON is more of a general union like the T&G and GMB. It organises in across industries. The NUR, the forerunner of the RMT was set up as an industrial union but there was always ASLEF organising the drivers.
Dec 19 2006 11:45
#5
John. wrote:
Also FBU.Button I think a lot would like to but can't because there are laws against unions poaching others' members.
There's no law against it -- what there is, is the 1939 Bridlington Agreement, which is a deal between TUC-affiliated unions not to poach each other's members.
This was effectively destroyed in 1993 by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act in any case.
Dec 19 2006 12:36
#6
the button wrote:
There's no law against it -- what there is, is the 1939 Bridlington Agreement, which is a deal between TUC-affiliated unions not to poach each other's members.This was effectively destroyed in 1993 by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act in any case.
Yeah sorry agreement was what I meant. Hmmm was that agreement really destroyed though? Isn't it still valid?
Dec 19 2006 12:38
#7
Nope. Bridlington is long gone.
Dec 19 2006 12:42
#8
It was on its last legs when Thatcher gave workers the legal right to be a member of whichever and however many unions they wanted -- much to the delight of one Alan England, who stood for General Secretary of both civil service unions (CPSA & NUCPS), as well as standing as a "black sections" rep for the T&G (even though he was white).
Dec 19 2006 12:55
#9
the button wrote:
Alan England, who stood for General Secretary of both civil service unions (CPSA & NUCPS), as well as standing as a "black sections" rep for the T&G (even though he was white).
bloody hell! did he get either of them?
Dec 19 2006 13:01
#10
ftony wrote:
the button wrote:
Alan England, who stood for General Secretary of both civil service unions (CPSA & NUCPS), as well as standing as a "black sections" rep for the T&G (even though he was white).bloody hell! did he get either of them?
No.
[memory lane]What happened in CPSA is, he was only nominated by one branch -- his own. (Ministry of Defence, Harrogate Branch, IIRC). And someone tippexed his name off the nomination form. He was standing as an independent right-winger -- and at the time, CPSA was controlled by the ultra-right "National Moderate Group." So what probably happened is that the NMG were crapping it about the right-wing vote being split, and so *cough* amended the nomination form after it arrived at CPSA HQ.
England threatened the union with legal action, and produced sworn statements from all his branch reps, saying that the nomination form had been completed correctly, and had no tippex on it when it went in the mail. The CPSA had a choice -- either face legal action (and be caught fiddling the union elections) or re-run the General Secretary election. They went for option 2. It was won by the venomous and amusingly-named Barry Reamsbottom.[/memory lane]
As you may have gathered, I was in CPSA at the time.
Dec 19 2006 13:27
#11
sounds like fun 
Jul 7 2009 13:03
#12
the button wrote:
England threatened the union with legal action, and produced sworn statements from all his branch reps, saying that the nomination form had been completed correctly, and had no tippex on it when it went in the mail.
Alan England now runs 'The English Lobby' which exists to support 'English people in their efforts to retain their English identity without being discriminated against'. Basically 'white rights'.
This support manifests itself, hilariously, through him threatening bloggers with legal action on grounds of the Race Relations Act.
He's a big swinging dick for the English Democrats Party, of which the English Lobby is a spin-off.
the button wrote:
This was used to great effect by a nutjob called Alan England (who worked for the Ministry of Defence in Harrogate). He stood for General Secretary of CPSA and GS of NUCPS in the early 90s, being members of both, and with the support of his own branch. He was also in the TGWU, and stood as a candidate for their National Executive in one of their "reserved seats" for black workers, despite being white himself.
This doesn't surprise me one little bit because he now spends his time complaining about organisations like the Black Police Officers Association.
Jul 9 2009 12:38
#13
Alan England, I think he was involved with the English Workers Union, a non racial union that aimed to organise all workers in England (their words) and which was a front for the English Democrats.
The RMT attempts to be an industrial union (and I would suggest it is), and does organise workers that the TSSA and ASLEF also aim themselves at.
OILC is an industrial union on the oil rigs, despite having competition, and is now a section of the RMT.
USDAW would like to be an industrial union, anyone who works in shops or warehousing including driving, supervisory, technical, admin etc staff can and do join, but it does not make any attempt to organise in a vast range of shops from what I can see, so does not deserve the title.
Jul 9 2009 18:24
#14
The Communications Workers Union within the post office organises mail workers , engineers , clerical staff , canteen workers , cleaners , all except management
But perhaps they should really be described as a company union since they have not tried to recruit other mail workers in UPS or TNT etc to create an industry wide union
They have gone outside the Post Office and organised in some call centres tho
Jul 9 2009 21:48
#15
Quote:
but are there any unions that organise on an industrial basis without neccessarily being explicitly revolutionary?
There aren't any revolutionary unions, explicit or otherwise.
Jul 10 2009 09:01
#16
The union Unite is organised on industrial lines.
Despite the best efforts of its members, the IWW (at least in the UK) isn't really a union, it doesn't have any real workplace branches!
Jul 10 2009 10:54
#17
There are quite a lot of industrial unions. For example UNISON, the second biggest union, which tries to organise the entire public sector.
This doesn't mean it, or any other "industrial" union act in any way which is significantly different from any other union.
Jul 13 2009 22:10
#18
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
Alan England, I think he was involved with the English Workers Union, a non racial union that aimed to organise all workers in England (their words) and which was a front for the English Democrats.
Very possible.
http://www.workersofengland.co.uk/
The Workers of England Union claims to be unique amongst unions in that it is not affiliated to any political party or movement, yet it is registered to a Mr Ed Abrams, who just happens to be a leading member of the English Democrats Party.
Jul 15 2009 02:53
#19
I was very surprised that the Workers’ International Industrial Union has been recently resurrected especially since the SLP has had to suspend the hard cover publishing of its journal
see:-
http://www.wiiu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
But before someone jumps the gun and declares that this post is some sort of De Leonist conspiracy ( and that fairy tale has been made in the past ! ), let me put the SPGB case against socialist industrial unions :-
As the trade union movement stands to-day it is still craft and sectarian in outlook, still mainly pro-capitalist, even where the workers are organised on the basis of industry.The struggle on the economic held under capitalism has to be, and is, carried on by socialists and non-socialists alike. The small number of workers who really understand the meaning of socialism is such that any attempt to form a separate socialist economic organisation at present would be practically futile, for the very nature of the workers' economic struggle under capitalism would compel such an organisation to associate in a common cause with the non-socialist unions during strikes and all the other activities on the economic side of the class struggle. The Socialist Party, therefore, urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their
labour-power.
The ideal trade-union, from a socialist point of view, would be one that recognised the irreconcilable conflict of interest between workers and employers, that had no leaders but was organised democratically and controlled by its members, that sought to organise all workers irrespective of nationality, colour, religious or political views, first by industry then into One Big Union, and which struggled not just for higher wages but also for the abolition of the wages system.
The trouble is that this cannot become a full reality till large numbers of workers are socialists. In other words, you can’t have a union organised on entirely socialist principles without a socialist membership. This was recognised in the big discussion on “the trade union question” that took place in the SPGB shortly after we were founded in 1904. The idea of forming a separate socialist union was rejected in favour of working within the existing unions and trying to get them to act on as sound lines as the consciousness of their membership permitted. The logic behind this position was that, to be effective, a union has to organise as many workers as possible employed by the same employer or in the same industry, but a socialist union would not have many more members than there were members of a socialist party. In a non-revolutionary situation most union members would inevitably not be socialists but would not need to be.
A union can be effective even without a socialist membership if it adheres to some at least of the features of the ideal socialist union already outlined , and will be the more effective the more of those principles it applies.
Jul 18 2009 19:58
#20
As most people on Libcom probably know that the WIIU split from the IWW in 1908 along with Daniel DeLeon and the Socialist Labor Party (the splitters retaining the IWW name until 1915). The WIIU disbanded in 1924. Bizarrely they have reformed this year.
I am interested to know what the IWW think of this, and in particular, the IWWUK. Has the WIIU resurrection happened via a split in the IWW?
Below is a quote from one of their documents:
Quote:
In beginning this effort, some have asked if we also intend to revive the rivalry and, in many respects, hostility that marked the relationship between the WIIU and IWW. Our answer is a clear NO! We are fully aware of the bitter history between the two great Industrial Unions, and we believe it is unfortunate that such bitterness existed.Yes, we differ from the IWW on the question of workers’ political action. That is why we are two, not one. But we nevertheless regard the IWW and its members as fellow workers — brothers and sisters in the great struggle for the abolition of the wages system, and liberation of the working class from exploitation and oppression.
We declare today that any past animosity between the IWW and WIIU is, should be and must be left in the past. We are not enemies or opponents, but allies and comrades in struggle. We are ready to agree in advance, without conditions, to assist the IWW in any campaign or organizing effort it undertakes, to not negatively interfere or intervene in any area of its work, or to attempt to diminish its membership, work or activities.
We invite members of the IWW who agree with the need for political action to become members of the WIIU, and hope they will extend a similar invitation. We hope, one day, to re-unite with our brethren in the IWW, to unify and move forward as One Big Industrial Union, on the basis of the principles established in the 1905 Preamble.
Jul 19 2009 09:34
#21
I didn't know that. So how many people are in the new industrial union? Double figures?
Jul 19 2009 19:21
#22
I guess they must be pushing double figures by now. I await further enlightenment on this subject. Back in the old days the WIIU had members in the UK. I wonder if their new recruitment drive has reached the UK yet, the WIIU is open to international membership as far as I know.
Jul 19 2009 23:27
#23
There was some discussion of the new WIIU on a recent thread here: http://libcom.org/forums/north-america/demise-de-leonist-slp-12122008?page=1#comment-333174
Jul 20 2009 17:18
#24
It doesn't come from a split, though I think one of their members may have held a red card in 2005 or so.
Jul 21 2009 09:34
#25
I read that the new WIIU was formed by some of the people behind the Communist League of a couple of years ago, in other words confused types.
Jul 21 2009 09:38
#26
So it'll probably just remain an Internet club like Communist League was.
Jul 21 2009 20:56
#27
Thanks for info guys
Oct 27 2009 22:56
#28
ajjohnstone wrote:
I was very surprised that the Workers’ International Industrial Union has been recently resurrected especially since the SLP has had to suspend the hard cover publishing of its journalsee:-
http://www.wiiu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
But before someone jumps the gun and declares that this post is some sort of De Leonist conspiracy ( and that fairy tale has been made in the past ! ), let me put the SPGB case against socialist industrial unions :-
As the trade union movement stands to-day it is still craft and sectarian in outlook, still mainly pro-capitalist, even where the workers are organised on the basis of industry.The struggle on the economic held under capitalism has to be, and is, carried on by socialists and non-socialists alike. The small number of workers who really understand the meaning of socialism is such that any attempt to form a separate socialist economic organisation at present would be practically futile, for the very nature of the workers' economic struggle under capitalism would compel such an organisation to associate in a common cause with the non-socialist unions during strikes and all the other activities on the economic side of the class struggle. The Socialist Party, therefore, urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their
labour-power.The ideal trade-union, from a socialist point of view, would be one that recognised the irreconcilable conflict of interest between workers and employers, that had no leaders but was organised democratically and controlled by its members, that sought to organise all workers irrespective of nationality, colour, religious or political views, first by industry then into One Big Union, and which struggled not just for higher wages but also for the abolition of the wages system.
The trouble is that this cannot become a full reality till large numbers of workers are socialists. In other words, you can’t have a union organised on entirely socialist principles without a socialist membership. This was recognised in the big discussion on “the trade union question” that took place in the SPGB shortly after we were founded in 1904. The idea of forming a separate socialist union was rejected in favour of working within the existing unions and trying to get them to act on as sound lines as the consciousness of their membership permitted. The logic behind this position was that, to be effective, a union has to organise as many workers as possible employed by the same employer or in the same industry, but a socialist union would not have many more members than there were members of a socialist party. In a non-revolutionary situation most union members would inevitably not be socialists but would not need to be.
A union can be effective even without a socialist membership if it adheres to some at least of the features of the ideal socialist union already outlined , and will be the more effective the more of those principles it applies.
On the other hand:
Trades' unions. Their past, present and future
(a) Their past.
Capital is concentrated social force, while the workman has only to dispose of his working force. The contract between capital and labour can therefore never be struck on equitable terms, equitable even in the sense of a society which places the ownership of the material means of life and labour on one side and the vital productive energies on the opposite side. The only social power of the workmen is their number. The force of numbers, however is broken by disunion. The disunion of the workmen is created and perpetuated by their unavoidable competition among themselves.
Trades' Unions originally sprang up from the spontaneous attempts of workmen at removing or at least checking that competition, in order to conquer such terms of contract as might raise them at least above the condition of mere slaves. The immediate object of Trades' Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades' Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades' Unions throughout all countries. On the other hand, unconsciously to themselves, the Trades' Unions were forming centres of organisation of the working class, as the mediaeval municipalities and communes did for the middle class. If the Trades' Unions are required for the guerilla fights between capital and labour, they are still more important as organised agencies for superseding the very system of wages labour and capital rule.
(b) Their present.
Too exclusively bent upon the local and immediate struggles with capital, the Trades' Unions have not yet fully understood their power of acting against the system of wages slavery itself. They therefore kept too much aloof from general social and political movements. Of late, however, they seem to awaken to some sense of their great historical mission, as appears, for instance, from their participation, in England, in the recent political movement, from the enlarged views taken of their function in the United States, and from the following resolution passed at the recent great conference of Trades' delegates at Sheffield:
"That this Conference, fully appreciating the efforts made by the International Association to unite in one common bond of brotherhood the working men of all countries, most earnestly recommend to the various societies here represented, the advisability of becoming affiliated to that hody, believing that it is essential to the progress and prosperity of the entire working community."
(c) Their future.
Apart from their original purposes, they must now learn to act deliberately as organising centres of the working class in the broad interest of its complete emancipation. They must aid every social and political movement tending in that direction. Considering themselves and acting as the champions and representatives of the whole working class, they cannot fail to enlist the non-society men into their ranks. They must look carefully after the interests of the worst paid trades, such as the agricultural labourers, rendered powerless [French text has: "incapable of organised resistance"] by exceptional circumstances. They must convince the world at large [French and German texts read: "convince the broad masses of workers"] that their efforts, far from being narrow -- and selfish, aim at the emancipation of the downtrodden millions.
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1866/instructions.htm#06
Most obvious is the RMT and until it was effectively smashed the NUM.
Regards,
Martin