Rail dispute
Weekly Worker echoes SWT management lies
The Weekly Worker (No. 417) carries a nasty front page political attack on Greg Tucker, in its article dealing with the South West Trains strike. It also has some bizarre views about the strike itself.
It argues that SWT are being successful in their attempt to avoid any disruption on strike days, that the strike is all about raising the profile of some RMT members, and that the union should have balloted its members on the wage rise imposed by management.
All three views are, of course, those of management. It would have been useful if WW had spent more time talking to the strikers and not just getting its line from the bourgeois press.
Scab managers are undermining the dispute – but not at all to the level that SWT claim. SWT is losing many millions every strike day. Rather than dwell on management "success" it would be useful to look at what can be done to make the strike more effective.
The accusation that this is a dispute manufactured for political ends is precisely the way that SWT boss Souter and the bourgeois media have tried to undermine the action.
It is not true. From start to finish this is a dispute about low pay and the effects of privatisation. It is a disgusting slur on the majority of RMT members who voted for the strike that they can be manipulated in this way.
And WW’s call to ballot the members every time management make an offer well short of the demand seems to be a textbook way of how not to run a strike.
The CPGB view that this would have resulted in acceptance by the members (and therefore would have brought an end to the action) is contrary to all indications at that time. In fact the imposition stiffened the resolve of the strikers.
The CPGB is entitled to advocate disastrous tactics for the strike (if they must) or to misunderstand the dynamics of it.
But to attack Greg Tucker (and strangely also Bob Crow) for failing to give the Socialist Alliance a profile in the strike by hiding his association with it, for "being a trade unionist first and a politician second" and for failing to give political leadership in the strike is either to completely misunderstand the links between politics and trade union work, or a wilful distortion.
How can a high profile trade unionist who stands as a Socialist Alliance election candidate be accused of putting trade unionism first and politics second? It stands reality on its head.
In fact Greg Tucker better represents the link between politics and trade union struggle than almost anyone on the left at the present time.
Greg stood as a candidate for the Alliance, took three weeks off to do it, was constantly attacked in the media (mostly the Evening Standard) as a result – and then victimised for it on his first day back to work. To argue that such a comrade is putting trade unionism before politics is crazy.
In fact it is to Greg’s credit that after being constantly attacked in the media for his political involvement with the Alliance, he was still – after months of delay – able to get the support of his members to fight his victimisation.
That shows that he has been able successfully to combine public political activity for the SA and maintain a solid base amongst his members.
Nor does it help the CPGB’s case to accuse Bob Crow of not giving the SA a high enough profile. Bob Crow is not a member of the SA. We hope he will join, but at the moment he has only given limited support for the Alliance. It is clear that he is not going to promote it at every opportunity.
Of course Greg argues the strikers’ case at every opportunity – that is his job as a socialist as well as a trade unionist. Clearly, though, in speaking as a representative of the strikers he cannot conflate that with promoting the Socialist Alliance.
Greg has been correct in carefully distinguishing between those points where he acts as a representative of RMT members, and those points where he speaks for himself as a Socialist alliance activist.
In attacking him over this the CPGB show that they don’t understand the relationship between politics and industrial struggle.
In fact Greg has given the Alliance a lot of very important publicity and profile which we need to build on, particularly for the March 16 trade union conference called by the Alliance.
Apart from Greg’s tiring round of Socialist Alliance public meetings across the country, the political work he has done has been shown in a practical sense by the fact that a number of the strikers have joined the SA and others are coming to the SA TU conference.
Members and supporters of the Alliance will no doubt be surprised to find that the CPGB, which is also supposed to support the Alliance, feels able to offer so little in the way of solidarity to one of the SA’s most high profile activists.
Note: CPGB: Communist Party of Great Britain; publishes the Weekly Worker