|
|
Worker & Community Struggles and Protests
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Civil Service pay dispute ends in defeat national |
worker & community struggles and protests |
opinion/analysis
 Wednesday September 15, 2004 09:32 by Time For Change - NIPSA tfc.nipsa at ntlworld dot com
 Time for change in NIPSA – Time for a fighting democratic union The end of the Civil Service pay dispute has been a bitter pill for NIPSA members to swallow. NIPSA members have fought the governments for eight months firmly believing that our campaign was about fundamental issues. As the dispute developed that view was confirmed. The dispute spluttered to a halt when the majority of the NIPSA Civil Service Executive decided not to continue that struggle. It would be a mistake on the part of the government to misinterpret this outcome. Throughout the dispute it was clear that NIPSA members wished to escalate the struggle but they could not find a way to make their voices heard with sufficient force. The Executive majority has consistently been out of step and has in reality proved unequal to the task the members expected of them. NIPSA now has a very serious debate to conduct. Lessons must be learned and radical changes made to the union so that we are never again led to this position. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (67 of 67)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67"The dispute spluttered to a halt when the majority of the NIPSA Civil Service Executive decided not to continue that struggle."
The dispute halted when a majority of the members voted against strike action. Thats known as democracy. A concept alien to the SP. This was a sad, depressing but inevitable result. For a long time the militancy of the members were frittered away in a series of futile local actions. The SP bear a lot of responsibility for this.
If you dont like the way the NIPSA members voted perhaps you should elect a new membership!
'Branches should meet to discuss the outcome of the dispute and move motions calling for ...
• Censure of the CS Executive'
Eh? But the ballot of NIPSA resulted in a vote against all out industrial action. The ordinary members have decided and now you are trying to overturn that vote. What you are really doing is censuring the members for not voting the way you wanted.
Long live the Dictatorship of Trots!
I'm very interested in the TFC comments about the end to the nics dispute - what's this "majority on the Executive" who have apparently led the union to defeat. I understand from the various bulletins issued by NIPSA during the course of the dispute that the decisions taken by the executive committee were, by and large, unanimous - but perhaps TFC / SP members weren't at the meetings were the critical decisions were taken or did they choose not to dissent for some reason?
I'm sure NIPSA members and the branch activists who organised the consultative meetings would be very glad to hear that TFC seem to think that they are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves when given the opportunity to cast their vote - especially when the dispute has been the subject of much debate amongst members over the last eight months - that seems to be the implication of this latest rant - is it because TFC didn't get the result they wanted - are NIPSA members too stupid to understand the issues without someone explaining it to them? (and presumably only a TFC person would be suitably competent). So much for democracy. Or could it be that TFC are "out of step" with the majority of NIPSA members in the NICS - perish the thought!
The above piece is clearly written by Peter Hadden - his clunky style is all over it. It is no more readable here than it is in the SP's paper. Another campaign, Peter, another failure - add it to the long list of doomed initiatives you have started in the past 30 years.
"...but perhaps TFC / SP members weren't at the meetings were the critical decisions were taken or did they choose not to dissent for some reason?"
Didn't the SP make a balls up on the CPSU executive all because their members were late for a meeting?
Sleep before revolution.
Public Service Union campaign Hadden can get involved in.
"Members of CUPE appalled at idea of trying to unionize prostitutes in Nfld
ST. JOHN'S, Nfld. (CP) - Some rank and file members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees are appalled at the idea of trying to unionize prostitutes in Newfoundland.
The suggestion came last week from provincial president Wayne Lucas, who says it would improve health standards for those working on the street. But a former member of the CUPE provincial executive says the idea is one of the most ridiculous things he's heard.
Rex Barnes, of Grand Falls-Windsor, is calling on locals across the province to send Lucas a strong message of disapproval at next month's convention. "
"Sleep before revolution"
I suspect some people might have been asleep for some considerable time and the revolution passed them by completely.
I look forward to seeing "all the minutes of executive cttee meetings (including previously omitted sections)" - (don't the minutes get issued to branches / members anyway?) - then we will know who was at the meetings (and had "a majority"??!!) and how they voted (or not as the case may be).
There are some honest SP members like hs. I wonder what he thinks about this? Its important that feedback from SP members is provided here. Because this is truly bizarre: the members of a union democratically vote against strike action and the reaction of SP members in NIPSA is to throw a tantrum.
Or is it? Was the above actually written by Peter Hadden? If so why is he allowed to dictate the policy that NIPSA should follow?
there is a majority and minority faction in the union, they disagreed on the tactic of a strike, the majority faction won. The minority faction stand by their position. Quite normal really, not revolutionary or unrevolutionary. Ireland is still quite a bit away from the norms in the rest of europe which have a much more combatitive trade union movement. Just another reminder of the actual state of affairs in ireland (rather than the wished for state somtimes expressed here) . No expert on the details though, feel free to contact either faction.
Can I first of all thank all the contributors who have extended their support to NIPSA members who have courageously undergone an enormous struggle against the government, a struggle that has ended in a defeat that will have repercussions for some tome to come.
Contributors are absolutely correct to point out that the democratic decision of the membership should be final.
The question been raised by TFC and many others besides is. Was the process democratic?
The consultation process required meetings of the membership to discuss the offers and the options, not a postal ballot or a phone round vote. Why was this process was not followed?
Just as a test to see how people would vote
Please vote for one of the following.
Offer1
Offer2
All out strike
The members voted against all out strike action. Yet the SP faction are not prepared to tolerate this exercise in democracy. They seem to want to overturn it.
Effectively this SP tantrum is calling on the NIPSA activists to vote no confidence in the membership. It would all be so simple if you could have done what Trotsky did - ban strikes and militarise labour.
totwatch which one are you voting for???
The members voted on what was on offer and voted against allout industrial action. Are you saying that the members are stupid? Are they so shallow minded that they cannot make an informed decision without an SP member telling them how to vote?
Its up to the SP to provide the answers as to why they cannot accept the democratic decision of the NIPSA members. For almost a year any chance of the members voting dfor an all out strike was destroyed through the series of morale sapping local actions. The SP bear a share of the responsibility for this. Why are they only now talking about differences on the Executive?
Why didnt the SP in NIPSA call for an all out strike from the start?
Curious
I know that like myself you will never have heard of a union leadership rigging a ballot or ignoring the wish of the union members. But in this unique case there is a question over the outcome.
One for the record books!
Those are serious charges. Now either you produce some proof or it will look as if the SP have contempt for union democracy. You just cannot accept that the members have a democratic right to vote against Trot advice.
which one would you vote for, please respond, or do you feel you would like to discuss it first?
At conference this year Branch 8 called for a debate on the dispute to date in Motion 2 of the civil service conference on the Tuesday. We could only talk about if motion 1 failed. what is there to say that if we called for the conference now CSGE would let us members discuss their failings.
After all the rank and file members (Uncivil Servant and TFC) called for esculation a long time ago, I remember going to Harkin House before one of their meetings asking and begging them to take further all out action
I was disgusted that people on the CSGE would not, because 20 odd members out on selective action wouldn't get financial help from NIPSA if an all out strike was called.
I remember going to some hotel on the 1 april asking for all out action, and a member of the CSGE claimed that we could carry on the selective action for a few years....... well what happened did i fall into a coma for a few years?
Its time for the rank and file members to get together and get rid of these right wing ********.
Now I dont agree with all that TFC have done in the past and even the link to the SP. (Im not in the SWP) But we must work together and build for the future OUR future.
Our members have been let down lots of times in the last 10 months, we must take charge and not let them down again.
Lets look to the CSGE and elect a new leadership not re-elect the same people that have let US all down.
You are showing yourself up as a child. This is typical SP distraction tactics. The MEMBERS HAVE DECIIDED. They rejected the advice/orders of the Trots. Learn to live with democracy.
"Its time for the rank and file members to get together and get rid of these right wing ********. "
Brian, wake up. It was the rank and file members who voted against strike action. Its much more likely that they will get rid of the Trots who cant accept democracy.
Not wanting to get involved to much in this, but I'd just like to point out that the press release has asked some questions and calls for a debate on some of the procedures, some seem to have read alot more into that, unless theres something I don't know the press release is not calling for the overthrow of the decision but a debate on how it came about, which sounds pretty resonable to me. Reality check again maybe, first read the release rather than comments half way down. I don't think (by reading the release) that tfc is calling for a change in the decision, again a debate on it.
All this is pretty normal to me, if labour loses an election to FF, they still oppose FF and their policies. They may tquestion the day the vote was called (students etc) And it dosen't mean they think voters are stupid. Just they believe they are right and FF are wrong. Probably the same thing with the minority faction. Unless you expect all losers of elections to go "its a fair cop gov" and retire.
Totwatch I am sure you will have seen Bulletin B/28/04 which clearly states the process for the consultation. You would agree that this was not followed. Now in these circumstances dont you think there are questions to be answered?
BTW which one are you voting for?:)
It doesnt just call for a debate. It calls for censure of the CS executive. Surely the idea of censure should come after there has been a debate among the NIPSA membership.
Its obvious that there wasnt even time for a debate among the TFC membership before this document issued. It has the mark of Hadden about it.
I wonder if you are just a SP fulltimer pretending to be in NIPSA? My only answer is that you will have to learn to accept democracy.
I hope Hadden openly makes the charge that the ballot was rigged. Then he & the SP can be sued for libel.
This tread started off about tactics used,
it was the CSGE (majority of 'Reclaim your Union') that decided how the dispute was handled. Yes TFC members are also in the CSGE. I stand by the decision made by our members.
However its time to look at how and why we lost the dispute, and the blame lies with the leadership.
This is indeed a serious setback for Unions in the North. Rather than seeing it as a chance to give the SP a kicking people should realise that any defeat for workers emboldens the ruling class throughout Ireland. I hope the left in NIPSA regroup and go on to oust the rightwingers.
This is excatly what the release says:
"It is now time to censure that leadership and seek the right of the membership to receive a clear explanation and have an opportunity to debate that failure.
Branches should meet to discuss the outcome of the dispute and move motions calling for
• Publication of all the minutes of CS Exec Cttee meetings during the dispute (including previously omitted sections).
• Censure of the CS Executive
• A special CS Group conference to fully discuss the conduct of the dispute. "
As far as I can see the minority faction is well within their rights to call for branches to ask these questions and call for the censure of the leadership. Perfectly normal democratic rights. People aren't used to fighting unions here so also not used to fights within the unions, happens all over the world everyday.
And the final word from the release.
"No one should doubt that from this debate and the experience of this dispute a stronger, fighting, democratic union will emerge to take forward this struggle. "
Debate and experience being the key words, not overturning the decision or anything like you have said.
By the way what political group do you support? or are you a member of a party, the irrational nature of your attacks seem more concerned with attacking a rival political group rather than discussing the strike. Your nickname is a bit of a giveaway to begin with, labour by any chance?
Ah go on ask me a hard NIPSA question:)
Tot watch I can see that you are deeply concerned by the sp but really that isnt the question on this thread.
What NIPSA members will be asking is how we reached this point. How we now find the largest union in Northern Ireland defeated and what process took us to this point.
One democratic right we should all have in a union is the right to ask these questions and the right to question the leadership.
Well as the TFC/SP are part of that leadership then the blame also lies with them.
I don't really know anything about this dispute and trotwatches last comment is the silliest yet so i'll be off. just to say best of luck to everyone in NIPSA and i hope a debate does come out of this.
Totwatch given up the democracy argument?
Going for the arguement that members SHOULD have the right to question the leadership, but throwing in a wee bit of a dig at 'TFC/SP' to see if you can stir it up.
A small step forward I suppose:)
What a surprise - lots of talk about democratic rights while refusing to accept a democratic decision - what is all this waffle about process - it was simple - branches asked to organise meetings - asked to invite speakers - members asked to vote. Now suddenly it seems we have to have a full scale mccarthyite witchtrial because the vote didn't go the way wanted. Will individual members who dared to vote against the executive committee be hunted down and forced to explain themselves? As for blaming some "majority" on the executive - TFC members are on the executive and the executive's decisions about the conduct of the dispute appear to have been unanimous.
And then all the bleating about how certain groups and individuals campaigned for all out action from the start - they did but the majority of members attending the meetings held to discuss the dispute did not agree - what part of "NO" do these people not understand??
I thought one of the aims of TFC was to return control of the union to the members rather than the "bureaucrats" - but when the members decide on the issue all hell breaks loose because they haven't followed TFC.
At this rate TFC will probably achieve a change in NIPSA - there will be nobody else in it but themselves - I bet new Labour ministers are laughing their socks off as NIPSA appears to tear itself apart and in the meantime the members get shafted by privatisation, ppps and threats of redundancy. Cheers.
"What a surprise - lots of talk about democratic rights while refusing to accept a democratic decision - what is all this waffle about process - it was simple - branches asked to organise meetings - asked to invite speakers - members asked to vote."
I agree with you entirely madge. The problem is this – meetings where not organized, members did not get to hear speakers and members did not get to vote. As you say it was a simple process, why was it not followed?
"Now suddenly it seems we have to have a full scale mccarthyite witchtrial because the vote didn't go the way wanted. Will individual members who dared to vote against the executive committee be hunted down and forced to explain themselves?"
Every single NIPSA member has the right to vote what ever way they want. What is at issue is having that right to vote. The real question is will members who where denied the right to vote at their meeting have the right to challenge the Executive?
"As for blaming some "majority" on the executive - TFC members are on the executive and the executive's decisions about the conduct of the dispute appear to have been unanimous. And then all the bleating about how certain groups and individuals campaigned for all out action from the start - they did but the majority of members attending the meetings held to discuss the dispute did not agree - what part of "NO" do these people not understand??"
No one that I know of campaigned for all out action from the start.
Amongst other things members campaigned for an escalating campaign of rolling industrial action, maintaining the over time ban and work to rule including the ban on the use of cars, public rallies, area meetings to keep members and activists involved in decision making, publication of a strike bulletin, linking with PCS. The call for an all out strike developed as other options ran out and the battle had reached a decisive stage. As to the question of unanimous decisions by the Executive, there where consistent differences of opinion (no crime in a democratic union by the way).
"I thought one of the aims of TFC was to return control of the union to the members rather than the "bureaucrats" - but when the members decide on the issue all hell breaks loose because they haven't followed TFC."
Madge is quite correct in her understanding that one of the aims of TFC is to put control of the union in the hands of the members. All hell has not broken out because members decided to go vote a certain way, it has broken out because members where refused that right.
Let the members decide
"At this rate TFC will probably achieve a change in NIPSA - there will be nobody else in it but themselves - I bet new Labour ministers are laughing their socks off as NIPSA appears to tear itself apart and in the meantime the members get shafted by privatisation, ppps and threats of redundancy. Cheers."
I suspect that New Labour will be laughing at the fact that the largest trade union in Northern Ireland has been defeated in the first major pay dispute in 20 years. The only thing that they would find more amusing would be the idea that after this experience the members of this union should not get to debate the dispute and change the union for the future. Would madge seriously propose that NIPSA does not debate waht has happened, should no lessons be learned as we enter the struggle on PPP, privatisation and redundancy?
No union should ever fear full democratic debate.
NIPSA will be a strong, fighting, democratic union, controlled by the members. I am confident that despite this set back it will be achieved.
With 20,000 plus NIPSA members in the Civil Service. Only 8,405 members voted on the CSGE recommendation. what happened to the other 11,500 or so. Questions must be asked, Answers are needed for the members.
whats really wrong with that. 10 branches did not even send in a return. whats up with that? Did all invited speakers push for the vote to go for all out strike? from what i have heard NO, why invite these people to speak on the CSGE behalf. Every speaker should have pushed for all out strike. But they didn't
I said the "decisions" of the executive committee were unanimous - I'm quite sure there was lots of debate within the executive committee and differing opinions expressed - each mem ber of that committee is elected by the membership to do exactly that - debate the issues - but in the end no real dissension is apparent - so what is this charge that "a majority" somehow took all the decisions unless of course TFC members didn't vote at all, weren't there or voted not in accordance with their (now) stated position.
There were quite a number of meetings with members across the province to discuss the dispute and the strategy. Maybe not as many as some would have liked but nonetheless members attended the meetings and voiced their differing opinions - the overall view was to continue selective action and not to escalate to all out action as some wanted. Of the course the biggest meeting of all took place in Newcastle in June - annual conference - and Conference endorsed the strategy and voted against the motions calling for escalation to all out action - did we have to have a special conference to discuss why Branches voted that way then?
As for the consultation exercise Branches were asked to convene meetings - it was therefore up to the Branch to arrange that - if that didn't happen then I think that's definitely an issue for members in those areas to raise if they see fit but it doesn't seem to be ordinary members making that charge - its TFC who have fired up this issue.
As for your implication that I am somehow against the members being able to ask questions about the dispute - I am not at all - in fact my recollection is that at annual conference a motion was agreed that included a review of the dispute and the strategy and a report to be produced for branches so presumably the Execuitve Committee will have to carry that through for debate at conference so that "the lessons can be learned".
My problem with the TFC position now is that having participated in the Executive committee and the decisions taken they are now attempting to wriggle out of the fact that they were as much a part of it as anyone else by raising spurious charges (presumably to undermine the validity of the result) and accusing some "majority" of being responsible when ultimately it was the members who made the final decision.
I can only hope that the the sake of NIPSA members in the civil service this little spat is over with quickly because the next ten months will be crtitical - I actually voted for all out action but at the end of the day the membership didn't want it - it will be up the negotiators to try and sqeeze as much as possible out of what little concessions we did get on equal pay audits etc. and if the government doesn't come through with something reasonable well you never know maybe that slim majority agaginst action will swing the other way. But I don't think members will be too impressed by a leadership in the meantime that wastes its time engaging in ridiculous and public disagreements.
madge
To deal with your last point first.
I do not see how NIPSA members would expect anything less than a full open ddemocratic debate on the conduct and progress of the dispute. It would be maddness for NIPSA not to discuss how the most important dispute in 20 years was lost, in fact it would set the scene for future defeats.
Your point on the conference motion is a good one, the conference did endorse the CSGE motion on the the tactics of the dispute. The problem is that 4 months after the conference that position has proved to be false. The CSGE position has proved to be a failure. Now it needs to be reconsidered.
I am glad you felt the activist/member meetings where a good idea. Can I assure you that they had to be fought for.
NIPSA has nothing to fear from full open debate, indeed what we should fear is a failure to learn the lessons and a repeat of this result.
" ......Your point on the conference motion is a good one, the conference did endorse the CSGE motion on the the tactics of the dispute. The problem is that 4 months after the conference that position has proved to be false. The CSGE position has proved to be a failure. Now it needs to be reconsidered."
What can be reconsidered? - we can certainly "learn lessons" for the future both in the context of any further disputes involving civil service members and also for other NIPSA members working across the public sector who face a similar onslaught on their terms and conditions. I think everyone involved would accept that and as I said before I think the executive will have to undertake a examination of that anyway which will be up for debate.
But we cannot now change the fact that during the course of the dispute the position of the executive committee was also the position of the majority of members - therefore by implication you are blaming the members. No strategy of industrial action will be successful without the support of the membership and in the end it was a very close run thing which at least signals that a significant number of members are very angry - they don't like whats on offer but not enough were prepared to take indefinite strike - we should respect that decision. I'm afraid nothing will convince me otherwise that this latest outburst from TFC is not about making sure any future dispute is handled better and more about trying to blame other people because members would not support all out action - and take the heat of themselves for their "failure" to have the dispute run according to the dictats from party HQ.
madge
We seem to be creeping closer to a common view or at least we appear to agree that the members have a right to discuss the issue.
I fear an examination by the CSGE would be a little like the police investigating themselves - a foregone conclusion.
As for your closing remark
"their "failure" to have the dispute run according to the dictats from party HQ."
a little disappointing and below the level of the rest of your comments.
unionised civil service workers are probably the best off in the system.
Try working on a vastly lower wage with no union, no representation and no chance of promotion with a good chance of pay freezes etc.
Relocation money? Try move or your out, pal.
Sorry, but I can't take any po-faced whinging from civil service unions who represent the most secure, best paid (for their qualifications) workers in the economy. Their griping also takes up a way dispreportionate amount of government time which would be better spent looking after the less well off.
and also, the Irish people get dreadful value for their money from their over-unionised civil service who won't agree to bloody anything unless they can wangle more cash out of the taxpayer.
Honestly, stuff them and their pay dispute. Hold out for as much as they can for themselves and in so doing make sure the government outsource any forthcoming public service endavours (ie. the Luas) to avoid stupid, greedy unions who don't give a good god damn about the next generation.
John
I take it you do know that it is the Northern Ireland civil service that is under discussion here??????
To John - I don't know where you get your figures from but the stats I have seen (official figures I believe) show that the vast majority of civil service workers in the admin grades are paid no more that their colleagues in the private sector. The idea of a big pay gap between the civil service and everyone else is a myth conveniently perpetrated by new labour to support Gordon Brown's regional pay policies - don't fall for the spin. I do feel strongly for those who have to work in non unionised low paid jobs but don't drag the civil service down to that level.
To NIPSA member - my use of the word "failure" is to mirror the language used by TFC - and I agree its not helpful to any debate to accuse others of failing. As for my reference to "party HQ" are you seriously suggesting that those TFC members who are members of the SP (or any other party for that matter) don't get issued with a party line? Lets not be naive.
As for the Executive committee policing themselves - well the debate I assume will be at conference so the members will get to decide (again) not the executive committee and they can reject the executive committee's findings if they dont agree (just like they did over all out action) so I still don't see why a special conference is required other than to stir it up.
I'm glad that you feel we agree on a lot of issues - it continually surprises me that there can be so much disharmony in the union when we all probably agree 95% on most issues. When it becomes so factionalised I think members lose out in the end because we end up getting hung up on differences rather than where we agree - not that we shouldn't debate it out. We should be trying to keep the members turned on to the issues after the dispute not least because a lot of new people have come through during the action but if all we do is engage in in-fighting a lot of them will switch off and that would be a real shame. Thats why I think what TFC are doing now in the aftermath of the dispute is dangerous and divisive.
I think john is refering to the southern civil service. When he can be so off beam about which side of the border everyone is talking about it is hard to imagine his info about the southern cs is well informed.
madge
We are in agreement, there should be a debate. Better now than 8 months away, as you mentioned in a previous comment we have many other issues to deal with. If we are going to be serious about them we have to sort our selves out. It is a fact we have just lost a dispute that we had to win.
Your ongoing comments about party lines does your argument no credit, as you will be well aware NIPSA has every political opinion in it, many are organised and some are even open about it but it is fair to say that neither TFC or RTU are controlled by any political group. To infer that they are is to attempt to muddy the issues that affect members.
NIPSA member - I think NIPSA members can be proud to have all shades of political opinion within the union - but to suggest that some elements have not attempted to take control of the "leadership" for party ends is ignoring the obvious. Not everyone in TFC is SP but their leading lights certainly are because they make sure everyone knows it - and to think that they aren't being steered by the party is ludicrous. When TFC launched itself they even talked about having meetings to decide policy and control (ie no independence) of TFC members on the executive committees - how does that fit within the unions structures when most members, I think, expect those they elect to make decisions in their interests not in the interests of some other external controlling body - I would object to any political party trying to exert control of my union whomever they are - it just happens that the SP are the most obvious / least discreet about it - anyone who takes a different position from TFC / SP is immediately haranged as part of the "right wing bureaucracy" regardless of what their political affiliations / aspirations might be - except the SWP/ "uncivil servant" grouping who get singled out for particular disdain for breaking the "left" (its their fault not TFCs that they didn't get a majority on the executive committee apparently). Blame game all the way. Is this what my union should be wasting its time with?
marge
I take it you mean our union not just yours?
NIPSA has live in the shadow of political
smears for 30 years. Time to accept the fact that members have the right to be political, all the better if they are open about it.
As for TFC it is clearly is not controled by the SP (any more than RTU is controled by the LP) all you have to do is take the time to read the difference in the positions put by both, TFC is a broad based body with many political opinions in it, what unites it is the wish to put the union in the hands of members and get on with the job of fighting the employers.
But the point of you hammering on about the sp is to avoid the real question, the right of NIPSA members to know what happened in the dispute, the right to discuss it and the right to remove a leadership who no matter what way you argue it led the union to its biggest defeat in 20 years.
As I said before you do your argument on credit by falling back on this kind of political smear.
fighting democratic union" indeed! -and we're supposed to believe that tfc is an organisation representing civil servants of differing political opinions.if that's the case one wonders why they "trot" out meaningless sp rhetoric.
The members voted NOT to continue the strike-surely even the average dimwitted trot can understand that.Personally i feel that members should have been balloted ,but surely the fact that over 11,000 people didn't even vote strongly indicates that an all-out strike would not have had much support from the bulk of members.
Our branch had a speaker from the EC desperately trying to "sell" the strike to a Branch whose members had already made up their minds and voted unanimously to reject the call for all-out action.i wish tfc would stop being so patronising and treating us like a bunch of schoolchildren,but I suppose that''s the way the sp and the swp and communists in general are used to treating us "woorkers".
Everyone has the right to a political opinion but what nobody has the right to do is to assume that everyone else has,or ought to have,the same opinion as oneself.Socalists sicken me whan they call themselves democratic because they don't understand the meaning of the word. Socialism= totalitarian dictatorship and we don't need that in nipsa or any trade union.Unfortunately for the rank and file the unions are completely infested with "representatives" who only represent their own blinkered world-view and aren't one bit interested in what their members think,especially when the members vote for something they don't agree with.
I swear if i hear the words "fighting democratic union" once more i'm going to reach for my ice-pick!!!! ;O)
'SP, SWP, Trots, Communists, socialism'
Oh Bill this is shocking, best thing I think is to ban all opinion and let the CSGE get on with taking the adult decisions for us all just like the old days when we couldnt mention the government at conference because that was political.
Even better lets reclaim the days when we could discriminate against the left!!!!
Bill we have the RIGHT to discuss our unions policy.
Nipsa member - I have no problem with members expressing their own political opinions - the fact is the TFC can't stomach it when the members don't accept their opinions - my contribution to this thread has been about that issue - you talk about being able to express opinions and politics yet when I ex[ress a view about the political machinations of TFC and the SP it is political smear? Are the only people allowed to express their views then members of political parties? And NIPSA is MY union - I am a part of just like the other 43000 members - its a pity all this cat fighting means a whole lot of them don't feel NIPSA is really THEIR union and therefore don't participate.
Public service “workers’” unions are on blight on this Country. They protect- amongst others- bad and even nasty college lecturers and teachers, the massively over admin staffing of the health service, power-abusing Fas instructors and officals (who often obstruct rather than enable those who need to use them).
They look after the ‘rights’ of the various Government quango-type bodies set up in “special needs” areas which then drain money and recourses from the people with the actual special needs. All in all they represent the worst possible combination of Statism and trade unionism and all at the expense, in every sense, of society at large.
Every NIPSA members is entitled to question the leadership at every stage of the year. This should not only be confined to conference. Every person is entitiled to say what they want and about who they want. Is the NIPSA member suggesting that we are allowed to question the leadership as long as we dont question TfC activists. If TfC activist want support from members then they must be ready to answer the members. Too long TfC have accussed the Uncivil Servant for splitting the 'Left Vote' but they could not tell us how we did that.
The CSGE are answerable to only NIPSA members, we elected them. We should all remember that the CSGE lost us the dispute not just a few on the group. Remember not to elect them next year.
We should elect people that will listen to the members and some political party.
Sorry my last line should read '.... and not some political party'
TFC and Uncivil servant do NOT represent the rank and file.They cannot accept democracy in action when it goes against their agenda.At the end of the day most Civil servants accepted that we couldn't hope to achieve much more without a major sacrifice on our part,and that the end result might not be worth the effort.
There is growing discontent with the presence of these unrepresentative left-wing groups in the executive. Once a year the members elect an executive which is accountable to them.They vote for delegates who will seek to advance their interests and negotiate effectively on their behalf.
The rank and file have no say in the deliberations of these shadowy groups whose agendae are decided by organisations over which nipsa members have no democratic control.
These people need to wake up to the fact that the rank and file want real democracy ,not "democratic centralism" or a bunch of patronising pseudo-intellectuals stuck in a political timewarp telling them "what's good for them" or conducting unnecessary "post-mortems".
The executive did as the members instructed them.They issued bulletins which clearly set out the union's position and enabled members to decide the future of the dispute.
My own branch will be ignoring the call for a 'special delegate conference" as we feel that it would be a total waste of time (and money).For the benefit of SP AND SWP members who are a wee bit slow on the uptake the votes have been cast,the people have decided and NO-ONE IS TO BLAME-
I think you are being somewhat unfair with your reference to shadowy groups. The SP for example are very much out in the open, indeed at a recent rally they sold 15 copies of the Socialist Voice
I'd agree with KINTAMA...... it's nice to see SP out on the street corners in Belfast with their pasting tables (a euphemism for papering over the cracks?) harassing ordinary decent shoppers. At least when they stand there, you have the option of walking past and ignoring them. That way, they may just fade away completely, and we'll no longer have to check the shadows for these 'free radicals'.
Only 15 copies? tsk tsk - I think the SP should immediately call an urgent meeting to ascertain why their workers / paperboys/girls did not sell more - obviously they were not making enough effort to convince people of their need to purchase the socialist voice to gain enlightenment - I think their leadership should be censured.
I detect a hint of sarcasm Madge.
You may wish to note that you do not have to attend a rally to purchase Socialist Voice it can be viewed online . However those of a nervous disposition should be aware that viewing online may expose them to pictures of the iconic Peter H.
how the sp have ruined everything from their "top down" etc leadership and how the swp would have done it all so differently, yet if we look at everything the swp ever gets leadership it is much more conservative than their rethoric, look at the uk for starters, they take the leadership of the socialist alliance, drag it as far to the right as possible and then drop it altogether for respect (along with womens rights), lets look in dublin at the bin tax campaign, who was the most conservative group involved who opposed spreading the fight across the city? Look at the IAWM, who were the group which attacked its own rank and file and grassroots causing them to split and held the movement back, in short I can only imagine if the swp were leading nipsa, we would have much more of the same if not worse. the swp can get away with its "one solution revolution" only for so long. the truth is its the most conservative and right wing part of the movement. the sp is what it is a left split from labour, but at least we know what they stand for, the swp?
Neither of these parties could be said to be in any way representative of the views of civil servants yet they both enjoy an improper and undemocratic influence on union policy.
I'm by no means in favour of censoring anyone's political views,but I nonetheless feel that the amount of power wielded by these tiny organisations of crackpot extremists is a serious problem for a union which claims to represent all civil servants impartially.
Our union cannot and should not be seen to be politically biased in any direction and members should vote with their feet to put as stop to all these fringe groups' attempts to hijack nipsa for their own ends.
Nipsa has members from all shades of political opinion and therefore no one political creed such as socialism should have a monopoly on union policy.No-one should be barred from holding office on account of their views however extreme but a line should be drawn when it comes to representing the views of a tiny and pretty much insignificant ultra -leftist group as in any way representative of the membership.
These idiots have way too much power in our union.Most members w ho went on strike did so because we wanted a decent payrise,not as part of some "struggle" for world revolution.
They are every bit as irritating as the bogus "charity" workers who pester us in the city centre everyday though thank god the sp only do it at weekends lol.
I wouldnt normally post on sites like this as I havent much interest in party politics.I mean I vote and I do care about the rise in the cost of living but supporting the lunatic fringe isn't going to make my life any easier or help me pay my bills.I don't even agree with most of their policies anyway and I don't see why the union can't stop them from imposing their views and cleverly manipulating the system to get their policies implemented,which I know they do(Ive been to conference quite a few times now).
Some of the unions policies are just political correctness gone mad although I suppose most people on this board would be in favour of that sort of thing lol.Members have only themselves to blame though if they just sit and moan about it and don't take action.
Well I for one intend tomake my voice heard in my union from now on and I know of many others who feel the same.its time for activists who believe that the union should be above party politics and should endeavour to represent each and every member to make a real change and boot out the bootboys(and girls) who think that the far left should have a monopoly on the unions.
My comments in relation to the SP leadership were on no way sarcastic! If the leadership can't engender the ability in their activists to get their message across to more people than could fit in a broom cupboard then they are obviously NOT VERY GOOD - this is the position that the sp take in relation to anthing that doesn't go their way when they blame other people for not providing good leadership. I have no doubt that other political parties operate in the same way - after all politicians (or wannabes) never take responsibility when things go wrong - in the case of TFC/SP in NIPSA at the moment when instead of "learning the lessons" and focusing on the real issues (regional pay, equal pay etc etc) they'd rather engage in hysterical rantings.
To Jenny - watch out jenny - if you carry on in this vein you'll be accused of being part of the right wing bureaucracy - bet you're worried!
Its funny though I've detected a distinct lack of retort from TFC throughout this whole discussion which let's face it apart from some contributions from NIPSA member hasn't been exactly to TFC's favour- perhaps they are taking the usual line of "we don't normally lower ourselves to respond to this sort of attack" (ha ha) or maybe they don't have a response at all?
while it may be a valid point to argue that TfC are not very accepting of blame RyU have not seen fit to prostrate themselves in front of the membership either.
i must have missed the hysterical ranting but no doubt will catch up on this at the 2005 conference
Are you suggesting that everyone on the Executive Committee should "prostrate themselves" before the membership? - to what end? I'm not particularly happy that unfortunately the majority of civil servants would not take strike action despite the dispicable way they have been treated by the Govt and I am sure that there are things that could be done better / more effectively in future should we (very likely) face the same treatment from govt next year but nevertheless that was their decision. I stand by my earlier comments that the blame game simply directs the energy and focus of the union and members away from the real issues that need to be tackled. Of course the Executive Committee will be required to account for the dispute and Conference will make its views known. As for missing the "hysterical rantings" you obviously haven't been reading recent statements / articles / posts emanating from TFC which I happen to think are "hysterical" (as in funny haha) and I agree that there will no doubt be more to come at Conference - but then I might do a bit of ranting myself should the occasion require it!
It would be helpful to see some of the articles etc mentioned by Madge so that observers could make up their own minds between hysteria and insania
Well, the one at the start of this thread is a good start and I suggest that anyone interested only has to visit the TFC website (the link doen't work you'll have to google it) or the SP site if you are really that keen. I particularly love the replies to "attacks" such as the one over the T&G - heres the link if you really want to read it -
http://www.geocities.com/socialistparty/struggle.htm.
When did Peter Andre join the SP?
the link leads to nothing.
One would hope that your comment is not an attempt to draw anyone into a sarcastic remark about the merits or otherwise of the SP.
I am not aware of Peter Andre having joined the NICS the only greasy useless toss%r with connections to the civil service I am aware of goes by the name of Pearson.
A thought has just occured has anyone ever seen Peter Andre and Ian Pearson together
Drop the "Struggle" bit of the link then click on Unions - its all there - including the references to "marvellous" election results when someone loses an election by an almost two thirds majority - I think the tories in Hartlepool could do with the same sort of spin.