The calling off of strike - action on the London among readers Socialist Outlook. Here two RMT members offer their views. THE PROBLEM with ASLEF during the recent London Underground dispute was not confined to its leadership, may be unpalatable for some readers, but many rank and file ASLEF representatives were deliberately collaborating with management to undermine the strike.
Their elitism and hostility to the RMT and other grades of workers has led them develop an unwritten, but acknowledged arrangement with management. ASLEF tries to ensure that the train drivers don't strike during attacks on other workers, in return for a better deal for drivers. The main problem with this is that half the train drivers are organised by the RMT.
The recent dispute was seen as an occasion to recruit, to openly duplicate the manage ment line 'that there was no reason for train drivers to strike, to tell RMT members that ther would to sacked = ASLEE the situation.
The other issue democracy in the RMT. Alan Nettle has not grasped the issue.
Certainly the original article was wrong or misleading - dominated LUL side. However, we haven't talked to anyone Complying with ballot legis would have been to defeat. proposals that had already been in force for a month. Alan thinks that a one day strike should have been called to 'test before the dispute demoralising effect of what would undoubtedly have been a badly supported strike, the I' then have had to call off the dispute using the The idea that the strike would have been a success is just wrong - the mood had changed have followed the ballot result. strikes can be called off by a couple of (elected) officials using their own system of consultation, but that everything ing the framework for the ballot Although a mass meeting it was to rally the troops at the eleventh hour, not to make decisions.
RMT leader Jimmy Knapp a result of the action. management did not give up, but In preparation for privatisation, it tinental rostering, to break the power tees, and to separate the network into business sectors'. The aim was clear - to break the potential unity of frontally, a tactic which had failed, they chose to break up the negotiating machinery and conditions via restructuring", negotiating sector by The advantage of this was that it enabled the management to use Tory anti-union laws - since to ballot in one sector for action against management proposals in another Even after action had forced the let them regain the initiative, allowing them to pick off one section of the workforce at a time. They chose the Signals and Telecoms section first -The package included a 25% rise that did not rely on overtime. But for a decent wage, it meant a cut in take-home pay of as much as f50 a week. More importantly, it scrapped Overtime rates for weekends were ended; eight hours obligatory rates; a flexible working day was inbanded scales, creating pressure for Following the introduction of the isolate those who rejected it. For economic sense - those who signed the deal are now being booked in for Alongside this, British Rail has refused to negotiate using the previous, higher levels. The RMT leadership response was to instruct District Councils to organise mass meetings. This was to be a part of a campaign, ending in a ballot of all BR True - there is still room for imIt was this vacillation that led to the strike action over wages. that there was no support for action amongst the membership. Activists losing - but felt that linking the issues It has since emerged, from a management circular, that all rail unions have agreed to an ACAS proposal for a 'working party' to look "taking into account' changes in the be half way to accepting an end to The RMT's ability to achieve unity of its membership across grades and businesses was the source of its strength in the 1989 strikes.
Throughout the union it is necessary to fight against concessions on need for common conditions, irrespective of the business sector Socialist Outlook are always welcome