Ill-judged tactics of SWP sectarians snatch
Defeat from the jaws of Victory
The SWP’s leadership of the recent strike by Islington UNISON housing needs workers has played into the hands of management.
Andrew Berry, activist from Campaign for a Fighting, Democratic UNISON (CFDU) and Islington Branch Committee looks at some of the lessons of the dispute – which sadly the SWP themselves are stubbornly refusing to draw.
See notes at end for explanations
On May 15 a decisive 70 per cent of the Housing Needs Section voted in a ballot in favour of strike action against job losses. On the same day, nine Housing Needs workers were told they had been unsuccessful in re-applying for their own jobs after an average of more than 11 years service.
They were under threat of redundancy, despite vacancies in Housing Needs and other comparable jobs.
On May 18, 16 of the Housing Needs workers walked out, illegally under the anti-trade union laws, as the council had not been given seven days notice.
The walkout was understandable, if unwise. The letters sent were highly provocative. So was the way in which they were distributed – one worker was called out of a meeting with a homeless family to be given hers. Management were set on confrontation with the union.
On Monday, rumours were circulating that the council were planning to sack strikers the next day. Four housing needs workers returned to work on Tuesday morning. The UNISON regional official confirmed the rumours to a strikers’ meeting late on Tuesday.
The Council sacked the strikers on Wednesday afternoon, by couriered letter to their homes.
There has been a history of unofficial action amongst workers in Housing and Social Services in Islington, and many of the strikers had a written warning on their file from a half-day walkout in July 1996.
In the 1998 local government elections, Labour had only held the leadership of the council by one seat. The Labour Group wanted to show its intransigence with workers to undercut the Liberal Democrats. They were handed a golden opportunity to attack the council workforce.
This is not to excuse the Council’s disgusting actions in sacking workers, but to say that experienced trade unionists should have been less surprised. Rank and file council workers were well aware of the political situation and the tactical errors of the SWP, and voiced their anger to stewards.
As well as the elected councillors being hostile, the workforce are also hated by senior management, who are seeking to further their own careers by "turning the borough around". The Chief Executive is reported to have said when she started the job that she would sack more people than she has had hot dinners.
Against this background, the decision to continue the unofficial action can only be seen as a pointless adventure. The SWP seemed more interested in adopting a heavy militant posture than in defending union members. More than 3 months later, the SWP has made no self-criticism of its actions.
A Branch meeting took place following the sackings and voted to ballot for all-out indefinite strike action to reinstate those sacked. National UNISON modified the question to "are you prepared to take action in the form of strike action to reinstate the sacked housing needs workers?" Despite this change, the ballot, six weeks later, was lost by nearly 2-1, on a 28 per cent turnout.
The SWP made a massive error of judgement by arguing to continue the unofficial strike, shown by the Council’s confidence in sacking the strikers. Management correctly assessed the weakness of the branch and the divisions within it.
These effects of the SWP’s action go well beyond the 12 strikers who are now jobless and unable to claim benefit. The effect of a victory in an industrial dispute is to strengthen workers’ confidence, leading to an increased chance of winning further disputes. Conversely, the effect of defeat is demoralisation.
The branch has a healthy industrial action fund, and could have kept members on official strike for a long time. The original dispute – against redundancies of housing needs workers – was winnable, as the 70% support for strike action attests.
There were also a number of other struggles brewing across the Council at this time.
The Housing Benefit Section had voted to be balloted for strike action against privatisation of the service. An ongoing dispute – or better still, a victory – on Housing Needs redundancies would have been a powerful spur to action and a successful strike in housing benefits.
This could have shown the way forward to Building Services which is threatened with 296 redundancies, as many of its contracts have gone to the private sector. Even though UNISON has little input, a victory would have had an important impact.
In the original dispute, a 70 per cent vote for action against redundancies was frittered away because it was necessary to respond immediately to the sackings. We had to make a big retreat.
Our original action was against redundancies while the housing needs workers were still employed. The method of making people apply for their own jobs was being used throughout the department, and successful resistance to this could have given a lead elsewhere.
Balloting for action
The next step was to build for a ballot and for effective action. However, the SWP rejected the strike-building options of starting with small actions, such as one-day strikes in the most militant areas, and gradually escalating the action across the workforce if management should prove recalcitrant. They argued immediately for all out indefinite strike action of the whole workforce.
The branch needed to ballot for reinstatement action very quickly after the sackings, while members were still angry.
This proved impossible because the membership records of the branch were in a very poor state. Over 600 members (from the former NUPE branch) were registered at the old UNISON branch office, in a building which has now been demolished.
Not surprisingly, national UNISON refused to run a ballot where 25% of the branch would be disenfranchised, and returned the address list for updating. A single complaint from a member unable to vote would have meant suspension of action until the question was resolved. The courts would find against the union immediately once they saw our address list.
CFDU members in the branch fought hard for a ‘yes’ vote, despite our concerns. We successfully argued to send out a UNISON letter with the ballot papers, and to organise a rally attended by two National Executive members.
Why did the SWP allow the strike to become split? Those who went back were committed trade unionists in favour of strike action over possible redundancies. Islington Branch Secretary and leading SWP member Rob Murthwaite’s answer was that "the housing needs steward [also in the SWP] discussed the return to work and decided it was small and could be ignored."
Yet one sacked housing needs worker in the SWP said that if four had not returned to work she believed the council would not have sacked any of the strikers.
The return to work of a quarter of a small group of workers suggests a major problem with a strike.
In short, the SWP refuses to admit any mistakes. They are an extremely sectarian organisation – seeing their own growth as the most important thing. Defence of the working class is secondary. Industrial action is posed as a way to attract members rather than a way to advance the class struggle, putting party before class.
Leading a strike with uncompromising militancy, whatever the outcome, attracts activists – though these are often external observers of the strike. Those involved, who suffer from the SWP’s actions, tend to take a more hostile view.
CFDU is not against unofficial strikes – these have happened and been supported in Islington in the past. But the branch has been weakened over the last few years. And many of those remaining who have been through strike action, even the long strike of 1992, are no longer sure where it all leads.
UNISON in Islington is weak partly due to the effects of the merger between NALGO and NUPE, which has been hard going. Our industrial action tactics need to be considered carefully in terms of our chances of winning and moving struggles forward for our members, nor for how they build political parties.
Democracy was a problem. Policy was passed at a small and unrepresentative meeting where 3 or 4 days notice had been given.
Following the sackings, Rob Murthwaite, Branch Secretary and SWP member, was against having branch committee meetings to consider the best way forward. In meetings, he put his own line rather than a collective one, and insisted on speaking after each contribution.
SWP have defended their tactics in Islington UNISON as being totally correct. There will be a re-election of the branch secretary on October 8. Rob Murthwaite says he will stand on the SWP’s record.
CFDU thinks that the SWP tactics have been an unmitigated disaster for the branch. We will challenge him on the platform of building the union and launching a recruitment campaign.
The union needs to prepare to fight the £69.3 million cuts proposed over the next 4 years: this has now been made much harder. Islington UNISON is in a weak but crucial stage. The future priority is to once more make it a real force to be reckoned with in Islington.
Notes
Islington is a constituent borough (local authority) within London
UNISON is the largest union amongst local authority staffs, including at Islington
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is one of the largest revolutionary left organisations in Britain