SERTUC International Conference

On Saturday I went to South East Region TUC International conference, held at Congress House, London. Finally, in this age of “globalisation it appears that the trade union movement is starting to wake up about “international issues”. Not just NGO and single issue “pressure group” concerns, but the recognition that mainstream trade unions need to think and act outside narrow national boundaries. In many ways it complimented the "Union Ideas Network" meeting that I went to last month. Many of the same issues were discussed and debated. A running theme of the conference is that “Internationalism” is not just an excuse for a “jolly” abroad of trade union worthies, but should be a core activity.

Tony Benn kicked off the conference talking about “Global Solidarity and the Labour Movement”. I have a soft spot for Tony even thought I have nearly always disagreed with his politics. I enjoyed his reminiscing of being on a British troop ship sailing back to “blighty” after the war. He was at the time a RAF pilot and Labour Party parliamentary candidate in the 1945 elections. He remembered the debates on board on why was it possible to have full employment when the country was at war killing German’s but not in peacetime when they could be building hospitals and schools?

TUC deputy general secretary Frances O’Grady spoke about “Trade Union Internationalism”. Good stuff – internationalism is not just about merging unions, foreign travel, committees and rule books. It is about practical campaigning to organise and promote solidarity.

Professor Keith Ewing (Institute of Employment Rights) spoke about “Workers Rights in the International Context”. He started with the UK which he thought was 1. Becoming a country of minimum standards not decent standards. For example we have a minimum wage but not a living wage, a 48 hour maximum week but the right to work longer etc. 2. The focus on worker rights was changing from being protective or regulatory to now being subject to economic policy. There is an emphasis on increasing Labour supply to meet the demands of globalisation rather than promoting workers interests. 3. British trade union rights still do not meet international ILO standards e.g. ban on all forms of secondary strike action, unions find it difficult to legally expel BNP members etc.

He was also concerned that in the UK only 35 % of workers pay and conditions are protected by collective agreements. In 1979 it was 85%. . The lowest by far in the EU. Austria has 98%! One of the reasons for continued inequality in the UK is that vulnerable workers by definition cannot exercise many of their “legal” employment rights. This makes sense to me. He did however acknowledge the many positive developments such as the Warwick agreement and union learning reps.

Barry Camfield (T&G Unite) “Developing the International Workers Movement”. He started by quoting former T&G leader Jack Jones “you cannot be a trade unionist no matter how hard you try if you do not think as “we” rather than” I”. Barry urged unions to develop “new international strategies” to enable and empower” activists. We should have “action plans” in the same way as global business plan ahead. In 1922 the T&G Dockers declared “Capital is well organised, labour must do like wise”. So back to the future.

The only thing that I was surprised and disappointed about was that there was not mention at all about the role of “Workers Capital” (organising trade union representatives who sit as trustees on our pension funds who actually own relatively big chunks of many national and global companies).

I went to the morning “trade unions in Iraq” workshop. In the workshop the vocal audience were pretty much divided between “Labour Friends of Iraq” (Iraqi trade unionists want coalition troops to leave but not yet since they face slaughter) and “withdraw immediately” (you are causing more problems and deaths by coalition forces remaining). It was interesting to hear the chair, Sue Rogers, describe her surprise (as an anti-war protestor herself) at the support the war had and the continued presence from coalition troops had from Iraqi trade unionists she had met.

I attended the afternoon workshop “Global Bargaining with Global Corporations”. Dave Spooner (general secretary of the IFWEA) started off by pointing out that ethical agreements are all well and good, but do they result in any trade union members being recruited? Need to make sure that global agreements are actually agreed with all the unions involved not just the well organised ones in the “west”. He described the controversial “change to win” union organisers in the US who invest heavily to organise in key targets. Some international trade union associations as not being “fit for purpose”. They need to organise not service (we have heard this argument before), the under funding of global issues by nearly all trade unions.

Stuart Howard (assistant branch secretary of ITWF) gave a positive contribution on the possible strength international trade unions can have due to the modern day “time sensitive” supply lines e.g. the 2001 west coast US Dockers strike. Transport Unions have potentially massive industrial strength and bargaining power if they can organise in international transport “key hubs” (certain ports and airports).

John Fetherston, Unite (T&G) convenor, General Motors Ellesmere Port (a fairly major employer where I grew up) spoke about the difficulties and successes in General Motors European Works Councils. Far more success than failure I thought?

The closing plenary had Colombian trade unionist Asdrual Jimenez (who still had bullets in his back from an right wing assassination attempt), Cuban doctor Juan Carlos Dupuy Nunez, Baljeet Ghale NUT president, UNISON own Keith Sonnet and rousing speech by Rodney Bickerstaffe (Solidar and of course ex-UNISON: seen above with London UNISON deputy convernor Gloria Hanson). Keith stressed the importance of international solidarity while Rodney reminded everyone that this day was also the 139th anniversary of the first meeting of the Trade Union Congress in 1868.

Euston Manifesto Conference – Deficits of International Law

The first speaker at the conference was Norman Geras (University of Manchester). As mentioned in my previous post I was late and missed the beginning. His subject was not arguing over the pro’s and con’s of any particular military intervention (such as Iraq war), rather he was concerned with defects in international law which in his view, do not prevent genocide taking place. Current International law should not only be about punishing human rights violators (however imperfectly - the various current war crime tribunals), rather its should be about preventing or stopping the abuse taking place in the first place.

He argues there is an existing international duty to intervene in cases of “genocide”. He explained that under existing international law there is a big problem, since the international community requires the same standard of proof for intervention as for prosecution. What this means is that after a massacre, such as what happened in Rwanda, there will be physical proof, “beyond reasonable doubt”, that illegal “genocide” has taken place (loads and loads of dead bodies). However, the same standard of proof is needed to even contemplate action to prevent genocide which is actually taking place (Darfur?). What this means in practice is that under international law individual countries or the UN will not have clear legal authority to intervene until the bodies can be stacked up and counted. Which is of course nonsense? This will not usually happen since it is often impossible to gather evidnce to a standard “beyond reasonable doubt” in such circumstances. I think he suggested that intervention action should be allowable on a “balance of probability” basis. What we would want as internationalists is the ability to support intervention (preferably but not exclusively by non western powers organised by the UN) in developing countries to tackle genocide not just try to prosecute the ring leaders at a later date. Makes sense to me.

He recognised that there are problems. Should the “duty to intervene” be supported by sanctions against countries who refuse to play their part? However, he did end on a positive note. Despite the repeated failure of the international community to stop genocide since 1945 there had been genuine steps forward. Much more however needs to be done.

Solidarity and Rights: Euston Manifesto One Year On

On Wednesday (afternoon and evening) I went to the first “Euston Manifesto” conference held at the SOAS, University of London. It was sold out. I arrived a bit late and the lecture theatre was packed with people, many were sittings on the isles or standing at the sides. There was a notably good mix of people (age, sex and race). I really enjoyed the conference even though some of it made my head hurt. I accept that many will be unclear about what the Euston Manifesto stands for – this is the preamble from the website

“We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.”

They are "For democracy, No apology for tyranny, Human rights for all, Equality, Development for freedom, Opposing anti-Americanism, For a two-state solution Against racism, United against terror, A new internationalism, A critical openness, Freedom of ideas, Open source and A precious heritage"

There are nearly 3000 signatures to the Euston Manifesto. A left wing mate who heard I was attending this conference suggested that I had become a “liberal tankie” (discuss)

There were five main speakers. I will try to make relevant comments (my own personal interpretations of course) on each of the speakers during the next week or so.

Abdal Ullah for Wimbledon?

Abdal is an elected Councillor and Cabinet member in Tower Hamlets. He has been short listed as a prospective Parliamentary candidate for Wimbledon CLP. This is a Tory marginal.
He has always been very positive and constructive about trade unions. He’s a hard working canvasser and campaigner. Pity he is in the GMB. Abdal is part of a new generation of Labour Londoners who can appeal across all sections of the community, young and old. He would be just the sort candidate to help the local Party defeat the Tories at the next election
The hustings will be held tomorrow. There are only 380 eligible members. Every vote could count. Local activists tell me he is a “front runner”.

Home of Labour Party votes for Brown and Harman

West Ham CLP, where the first ever Labour MP, Kier Hardie, was elected in 1892, voted tonight to nominate Gordon Brown for Leader of the Labour Party and Harriot Harman to be the deputy. Gorden was nominated overwhelmingly and Harriot also won the deputy vote by a clear margin. Jon Cruddas was 2nd then Alan Johnson. There was a lively but good natured and comradely debate in an “all members” CLP meeting.

UPDATE: just heard that Tower Hamlets Labour Party voted to nominate (supportive) Brown as leader, and Jon Cruddas as deputy (Alan Johnson 2nd).

Battle of the Kruger

This, is on the face of things, off message, however it also reminds me of the join UNISON “Polar Bear’s and Ants” TV adverts of a few years back. UNISON had to pull the advert since viewers were found to identify with the Polar Bear's (the “bosses”) rather than the Ant's (the workers). UNISON now has a new very good “one in a million” advert.
However, please watch this entire “my space” video link (sorry I haven’t worked out yet out to put a video on my blog directly – anyone got a step by step advice for "blogger" on how?). I know that people email us “this is great “links” all the time. Believe me this is honestly the most amazing wildlife film I have ever seen and does have a trade union message (of sorts). Watch all of it! Sound on. You will not "get" it otherwise. UNISON are obviously water buffalo - Which one is Dave? the baby? polite comments please - Hat trick thingy to my South African cousin-in-law “mine’s a cold one” Peter.

Click on Battle of the Kruger

UNISON Labour Link endorse Brown & Johnson

UNISON Labour Link National Committee have voted unanimously to make a supporting nomination for Gordon Brown as Leader.

Alan Johnson was nominated as Deputy Leader (Peter Hain to have 2nd preference).

This is a recommendation (all levy payers will have a postal vote). Will post some thoughts later.

Excellent news for UNISON and the Labour Party.

Salford, Stratford and Bow Belles: Deputy Leadership Meetings

Excuse the probably sexist pun – Tonight there was the second event organised by West Ham CLP (sponsored by London UNISON Labour Link) in Stratford to meet Deputy Leadership candidates. Last Wednesday we had Hilary, Jon and Harriet. Tonight it was the turn of Alan, Peter and Hazel. First picture is of Hazel with local MP Lyn Brown MP and Rushanara Ali, the new Labour Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (to take on Galloway’s) Again, I was acting as a steward (and self appointed CLP photographer), so I only picked up bits and pieces.

Each candidate had 10 minutes followed by a Q&A. Peter was “proud” to have sent his children to a comprehensive in the middle of a South London Council estate. He spoke about his background in the anti apartheid movement and his recent work promoting peace in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that all the candidates had voted in favour of the War in Iraq.

Alan, the only candidate to have left school at 15, he said that the Labour Party was only able achieve things (minimum wage) since it had stopped being losers and started wining general elections. He wanted the 21 century to be one dominated by the progressive left, not as was the case in the 20 century, the regressive right. Controversially, in response to a question, he was the only candidate to indicate that we should consider some type of “amnesty” for illegal migrants while the others were opposed. He recognised that there were difficulties (encouraging further illegal immigration etc) but he thought it was a trade union principle. Peter thought if we adopted this we could lose an election on this point alone.

Hazel started off by saying this is the first hustings she had been to that she had been given a “lollypop” (courtesy of UNISON). Her main thrust was she wanted to be an organising and campaigning deputy leader. Labour will only win the next election through “discipline, unity and loyalty”. If Cameron and the Tories win they will cut through vulnerable people like a knife through butter. She was firmly in favour of Academies which she said had transformed a school in one of the toughest wards in her constituency.

I did note that all the candidates supported (to a lesser or greater degree) Councils being allowed to build social housing. Alan was probably the most enthusiastic. They all stressed their trade union backgrounds. They left at 9.15pm to rush to the “Newsnight” Deputy Leadership live debate. We then had a raffle (tickets picked by Rushanara). After packing and clearing up we then ended up in the pub “The Goose” in Stratford.

See No Evil: Diss-Respectful hypocrisy?

Former Tower Hamlets Respect councillor, Wais Islam, makes a damning attack on “Respect” in this week’s East End Advertiser (24 May 06 page 12 “Off you Chest” - can’t find an Internet link yet). One of the reasons he gave for leaving Respect and joining Labour was that “George Galloway and Respect should practice what they preach. They call on the Town Hall to employ ethic minorities and make accusations of “institutional racism”…. Yet Respects own employees are mostly non-ethnic minority. How hypocritical”. He points out that the (predominantly white) Socialist Workers Party stopped a Bangladeshi businessman, Azmal Hussein, from standing as the chair of Tower Hamlets Respect last year. Note also the SWP white candidate for the 2008 mayor of London election.

His defection is not the only “problem” for the beleagued “Respect”. Kumar Murshid (above centre), former Asian Affairs advisor to Ken Livingston, announced that he was leaving Labour for Respect. Kumar, a former Tower Hamlets Councillor was recently cleared of corruption charges. He somehow blames the local Labour Party for the criminal charges. However, he waited until his attempt to become the next Labour Party candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow, had failed (not a single nomination) before announcing he would leave Labour for Respect.

What is really interesting and I think potentially the long awaited death nail of “Respect” in Tower Hamlets, came out in an embarrassing interview, he and Galloway gave to the BBC. It has long been rumoured that the only reason that most of the (complete and utter non-socialist) Bangladeshi Respect councillors, have not left Respect is that Galloway had always claimed that he would not stand for re-election and that the future candidate for Bethnal Green and Bow would be one of these Respect councillors. However, since Kumar (his old mate) has now joined Respect, Galloway now says that Kumar could be the Respect candidate by saying “yes definitely, one of the strongest possibilities”.

The Bangladeshi community took the SWP for mugs in last years Council elections in Tower Hamlets and Newham. They got the SWP money and volunteers to run the elections, yet not a single white SWP councillor was elected. Even in what should have been “safe” Respect wards, the community voted for Asian candidates of any Party rather than white SWPers.

However, it seems that they now want their revenge by imposing their own candidate for the next general election. Expect trouble at mill…
Guest Post: Neil T.

Guest Poster: Benn, Harman and Cruddas at West Ham

By Richard B
Last Wednesday West Ham CLP organised the first of two deputy leader debates. In Stratford we had Hilary Benn, Jon Cruddas and Harriet Harman. We have the others this week (Tuesday).

Congratulations to West Ham activists, Lyn Brown MP and her team for the organisation and UNISON-Labour Link for stumping up some cash. I think West Ham is one of the few CLPs that has organised events with all the candidates. Shows what you can do with everyone working together! The meeting was chaired by Conor McAuley (West Ham CLP Chair) who chaired the meeting in a professional and balanced way.

Below I will give my general impressions of the debate. I will declare an interest as I had Cruddas leanings before the meeting and was likely to vote for him with my first preference before the meeting. Although I do have a lot of time for Harriet as she was one of the few MPs that turned up at one of the “Justice for Cleaners” rallies at Canary Wharf (I recognise her TGWU family connection). Likewise Hilary has attempted to move the agenda on over international aid and comes across as a human being

My initial impression was that all the candidates seem to suffering from campaign fatigue and looked tired. However their opening 10 minute speeches were well presented and they then answered a range of questions from Iraq to heat islands (don’t ask). There was a high level of agreement that the party needs “renewal” and is not “fit for purpose”. On this point I do find it interesting that two cabinet ministers seem to give the impression that they were not around as the party was run into the ground. Will this change under Brown?

I thought that Harriet was slightly lacklustre and seems to be campaigning as Gordon’s preferred number two “I have worked with him for 20 years”. I am also not sure that I buy in to her argument that she will resonate with southern swing voters. Having been brought up in a seat in London during the 1970s and 80s, that went Tory in 1983 and back to Labour in 1997 I am not convinced. I broadly agree with the argument about a woman in the position (I supported an AWSL in West Ham) but I think this is outweighed by other issues. When Harriet was speaking suddenly the picture of Shirley Williams and her hectoring tones appeared in my minds eye. Shouldn’t renewal mean policy not image? On Iraq Harriet did call for an immediate withdrawal which surprised me. Does Gordon know?

In my opinion Hilary started slowly but got better as he got going. He was the only candidate to mention Warwick “We need Warwick Two” and international issues other than Iraq. He showed some real passion and commitment and I left with a more positive impression of him than I started with. I think overall he answered the questions with the greatest detail.

Jon has actually thought deeply about what renewal means and has a programme for bringing back lost voters in policy and practical terms. Maybe he is still a bit vague on other policy issues but has passion and can enthuse people. The dig from other candidates that the position also means deputising for the Prime Minister in the Commons and abroad which seems aimed at Jon doesn’t hold up. I know about the suspicions of Jon’s “tack to the left” but in my opinion he can energise the party and I think resonate with voters that have deserted us. I left very enthusiastic about Jon.

Overall I thought Jon came over the best at our first debate. In a highly unscientific poll afterwards (but with people who were going to support each of the candidates before or were undecided) Jon went down very well and Hilary impressed me. Roll on Tuesday.
Richard B.

grayee: If anyone else who was there wants to post a different view let me know.