The Blind Alley of the IWU

national | worker & community struggles and protests | opinion/analysis

Monday September 20, 2004 13:37

by Liberty Hall Langer’

Opinion piece on the IWU

Sounds so easy, doesn’t it? Out with corrupt old unions, in with new revolutionary unions, problem solved. Or is it? After all, ‘social partnership’ is the major problem facing the working class, no?

Well, no. The major problem facing Irish workers is that fewer than 30% of them are organised into trade unions, a figure which drops below 20% in the case of private-sector workers. Figures like that indicate a decline into irrelevance, and fast, with all that that entails for income inequality in an already deeply divided society.

Lenin called unions ‘schools of communism’, and certainly any progressive cause worthy of the name has to have the involvement of unionised workers. Weaken the unions, you weaken everything else: the emerging ‘Seattle’ movement, protestors for peace, womens’ rights, opposition to racism, and so on. So the need for strong unions extends outside the workplace.

One would expect new radical unions, especially ones which explicitly evoke the legacies of Larkin and Connolly in their literature (see www.union.ie), to be busy taking the basic message of trade unionism to the minimum-wage underclass. And make no mistake, they’re there: the Celtic Tiger isn’t roaring because of Intel and Hewlett-Packard, but because of hospitality, tourism, low-tech manufacturing, personal services and private healthcare, sectors characterised by lack of union organisation and (consequently) low pay. But the Independent Workers’ Union isn’t doing that at all. Let’s examine where the IWU is actually directing its attentions.

A glance at the IWU website turns up an appeal to Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus workers to oppose redundancies. No trade unionist can disagree with that, but the fundamental problem for a trade unionist seeking to tell Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus workers that is how to avoid being trampled in the rush for the exits after the negotiation of a fabulous redundancy deal negotiated by nasty SIPTU and IMPACT.
Now the IWU is seeking to recruit Dublin Bus drivers, a group of workers who now have the choice of nasty SIPTU, a previous breakaway union, the NBRU, or the IWU. Now, I’m all for any group of workers seeking to improve their conditions, but Dublin Bus drivers are not on a bad wage: ask them. Private-sector drivers, though, are often on appalling money and subjected to excessive hours and bullying. Is the IWU doing the hard work of organising in that sector? If not, why not?

So, as with the NBRU before it, what passes for IWU strategy is recruiting public-sector workers who are already members of other unions. As a business proposition that may have much to recommend it, but as an approach to building workers’ power it is somewhere between utterly cynical and downright potty.

The only place for trade unionists and socialists is with the organised working class. And they’re in nasty SIPTU, the ATGWU, Amicus and the rest. They’re never going to join the IWU en masse. N.E.V.E.R. Is there anyone who thinks that they are? Is the IWU even asking unorganised workers to join? It’s a lot easier to work from disgruntled members who are already sold on the ideas of trade unionism than to take the fight to the bosses of non-union Ireland. Embarking on a voyage that you know can end only in failure is both futile and self-indulgent.

Larkin, the old hero of the new IWU, stood for ‘One Big Union’. The IWU stands for ‘One Small Union’. Workers don’t leave their organisations easily, even if they know that they are deeply flawed, as nasty SIPTU and the other ICTU unions indeed are. In practice, what they do is leave the union movement altogether, usually when they move from a unionised employment to a non-union job. The IWU is an irrelevance to the job of transforming the Congress unions into fighting, organising, campaigning bodies focused on gaining power in the private as well as the public sector.
When the IWU’s activists see that their enterprise isn’t going to work – and it’ll be ordinary workers refusing to join their union that will do the showing, not Bertie Ahern and David Beggs cooking up some conspiracy – they, too, will become disillusioned and likely drop out of activity. The existing unions are doing a good enough job of kicking the enthusiasm for struggle out of people without the IWU joining in!

Socialists should forgo purity and self-righteousness for the construction of militant unionism. And that means starting the hard slog of organising within the existing trade unions and organising through those unions in workplaces. 30% of nasty SIPTU members who voted in the recent ballot wanted to reject stage 2 of Sustaining Progress. 30% of nasty SIPTU’s membership is about 70,000. I don’t think that’s such a bad place to start from. In building a militant workers’ movement, I’d much rather start there than from whatever the IWU’s (undisclosed) membership figure is.

save preference

Comments (19 of 19)

Jump To Comment:

Wrong argument

by Trade unionist - SIPTU

Mon Sep 20, 2004 21:46

There is a case against the formation of a new union, Ive made it myself and continue to believe that the IWU are wrong both in their timing and goals. However that case against them is NOT the same as the one outline by Liberty Haller above.
For the record the problem at Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus is not the fabulous redundancy package on offer (that comment alone suggest that the writter dosnt know his arse from his elbow).
The problem is the level of demoralisation of both groups of workers who have watched as their unions refused to fight in principal either the break up of semi states or the privatistion of their industry. (Witness the fiasco of last March 18. with strikes supported by vast mag in both CIE and Aer Rianta been cancelled by SIPTU leadership)

If workers where confident that their unions would fight these attacks from Brennan and Harney they might be less eager to get out of the job in the first place, and the old trade union arguments about preserving unionised jobs for the next generation of workers might get a hearing. In its absense
workers will look at whats on offer.
I do agree that we have to start by reclaiming our EXSISTING unions, that both the anti partnership and Des Derwin vote are a base to do so.
But the left has a huge mountain to climb in these unions. Despite that, deciding to simply scale a different mountain is no answer. For the record I think the IWU people are genuine and principled.The tone of this contribution is unhelpful.

Role of smaller left unions

by hs - sp (personal capacity)

Mon Sep 20, 2004 23:41

I believe there is an important role for small left unions, while in italy I saw the efect the smaller "unions of the base", had on the wider union movement. They often acted as a catylst to push the larger "official" unions in action. In one case in particualr before one of the big general strikes in the last years a cobas march attracted 100,000 trade unionists and this helped the bigger unions make up their mind about organising a much bigger demo, also they are generaly more political. Anyway in my opinion they play a huge role in italy and in ireland could possibly wake siptu from their long slumber. Also they can actualy make unions relevant to people! Of course they came from splits after huge struggles, but stilll in ireland you have to start somewhere.

Why join?

by IWU member

Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:24

Simple reason I joined was to get out of SIPTU and not have anything to do with a union that is up to its tits with the Labour Party. Also as a two fingers to the whole charade of what passes for trade unionism in this country.

The organisation of low paid workers is certainly a problem and not sure how if ever it will be resolved. At the moment there are so many non-nationals and part-timers just happy enough to have any job that there is no impetus towards militancy. That will change - if ever - only when those jobs become long-term and people in them realise that they cannot survive long term (survive as in buy a house/bring up kids/holidays/car etc). It is possible, however, that this will always be offset by the huge turnover and that people will not stay because of various factors - non-nationals who get better jobs, students come and go and so on.

Agreed

by Jonah

Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:15

I agree with the last poster to a large extent. I joined the IWU because I was ashamed to be a member of SIPTU, because of the undemocratic nature of the union, on a practical bread and butter level the extremely poor representation I received in my workplace and a variety of other reasons.

I don't have the time to be as active in the IWU as I would have wanted but at least I can be a trade unionist again with a clean conscience.

Q's for Liberty Hall Langer

by seedot

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11

Whether or not starting a new union is the correct response to the current state of TU's in Ireland, would you agree that the right to distribute TU material in the workplace is one that should be protected regardless? Should SIPTU members show solidarity to the Bus drivers even if they disagree tactically?

Are your arguments not the same as those which say political activity should happen through the existing parties i.e. entryism to Labour in the case of socialists? (This is an honest question - I'm trying to figure it out).

I would be concerned that the IWU comes to attention not through new private sector workers, but rather through defections from existing unions. Its not so much the poaching aspect (bullshit argument which treats members as the property of their union) but more that they have not increased the number of organised workers by getting members in Dublin Bus. Some of this is due to the attitude of the IWU member who posts: that people can only be organised when their jobs are long term and that low paid jobs are only done temporarily by students or new immigrants. This is the standard Irish TU attitude - even though more than 60% of the jobs in this country are now 'atypical' (i.e. not 9-5 monday - fri, year round). The people who need to be organised are the people that even the IWU seems to have written off.

Liberty Hall Langer

by Nordie Langer watch

Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:19

Any argument put forward that contains the magic words 'Lenin called unions schools of communism’ is a real clincher.
zzzzzzzzzzzz

Wonder which party you are in?

Party membership

by Liberty Hall Langer

Tue Sep 21, 2004 13:34

I'm a member of the Labour Party.

Liberty Hall chap

Tue Sep 21, 2004 13:45

Now I remember why I left SIPTU !!

In fact I'd rather be in a union that was linked to the DUP than the Labour Party

Party membership (2)

Tue Sep 21, 2004 13:55

Fair enough. I'll work with people of any party and none myself. The unorganised workers don't give a toss, of course.

What a langer you truly are

by Labour Langer watch

Tue Sep 21, 2004 13:58

"In building a militant workers’ movement, I’d much rather start there than from whatever the IWU’s (undisclosed) membership figure is."

As a member of the Labour Party, the first thing that you would do is stop the building of anything militant. Piggy Geraghty wouldn't allow you do anything that might upset him having Liberty Hall for his musical soirees.

"The unorganised workers don't give a toss, of course."

Tue Sep 21, 2004 14:05

An attitude that's more than reciprocated by SIPTU.

organisation

by pat c

Tue Sep 21, 2004 14:14

it is unfortunately true that the existing unions have been remiss about recruiting low paid and part-time workers. there was an attitude, not just confined to the officials, that all of this was a hassle. i rember one shopsteward in MANDATE telling me that parttime workers were a problem, they didnt want to recruit them because they cost just as much to service as full time workers!

Re: Q's for Liberty Hall Langer by Seedot

by IWUer

Tue Sep 21, 2004 17:44

With all due respects Seedot, the Independent Workers Union has recruited home helps in Dublin and Cork who don't always work the sterotyped 9 to 5 week; and many of whom are part time; and many of whom are temporary; and were very poorly paid until the IWU started campaigning for their rights when the traditional trade union movement didn't want to know. So that's certainly not true that we're not interested in the many new categories of workers. We are recruiting a mix of part time, temporary and full time workers; and if workers in Dublin Bus, An Post, Aer Lingus or any other semi-state or private sector company; or civil servants for that matter want to join us then we will welcome them in, as well as new non-unionised workers. Our priority though is to look after workers who are not already in a trade union. Also immigrants are to a very large extent being ignored by the traditional trade union movement.

So I dont need real representation HUH?

by Ronnie

Fri Oct 01, 2004 22:30

so the IWU is getting members from other unions instead of getting new union members who do not have union representation?

Well I am Bus Driver working for Dublin Bus and I am only allowed to join either NBRU or SIPTU, neither of these unions will do anything about the company breaking its agreements leaving assaulted dirvers with no money telling them that Dublin Bus will not pay them as per the agreement because they dont recognise what happened as an assault allow bulling to go unchallenged allow intimidation by management. Drivers are being victimised on a daily basis and the people NBRU and SIPTU who are supposed to be protecting the workers are in fact working with the management to adversly affect the working conditions, when they are asked if they will do something to make the company abide by the agreemenst they say "what can we do" when workers do find a way to make them by catching them out by producing things they have kept hidden they change the agreement s to make it impossible.

Answer me a couple of questions:
1. should a union represent the interestst of its members?
2. Should a union hide agreements with the company from its members?
3. should unions who act in this manner be allowed to continue as unions?
4. If union members were being represented in a proper manner why would a union mind competition?

Thanks

paul

by paul - dublin bus

Tue Apr 19, 2005 22:08

4 pinebrook glen

8204508

can any one tell me who represented the workers in gamma orginisation then tell me why we need the likes of the iwu

I know I know

by justadot

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:00

I heard the guy responsible ring up George Hook last week so I know the answer.

Eric Fleming was the official from SIPTU representing the GAMA workers.

He did this by making a deal with management to organise the workers. Then he met with management to discuss the needs of the workers. When there were complaints he met with management and the accountants. On George Hook he made the point that people hadn't realised how duplicitous the company were - not like the nice honest employers that SIPTU prefers to be in partnership with (he didn't say the last bit). There was a guy on from BATU as well (he'd been invited, brother Fleming seemed to ring up off his own bat) who had members who hadn't been paid for ages - he didn't seem too shocked by the company's cleverness.

So we need the likes of the IWU since they assume the employer will be duplicitous and talk to the workers instead.

Is this right?

Do I get a prize?

SIPTU has questions to answers

by SIPTU member

Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:15

Leaving aside the IWU question the SIPTU leadership have some very serious questions to answer in relation to GAMA - it is a pity that a lot of AGM's happened before the news of what was going on was broken in the media.

the real truth

by paul - iwu

Mon May 30, 2005 00:15

finnmccool02 at yahoo dot com

as a driver for dublin bus it annoys me to see such comments .

siptu have no control over the dublin bus branch of its union.

siptu and the nbru have only agreed recently to new disciplinary and greivance procedures

they allowed drivers to sit on a defective seat

if you ask for any of the agreement between themselves and the company they will refuse to give them

you are allowed to have any disciplinary evidence when called into company meetings

as unions they have forgotten that they represent there members not the employers

when is a union not a union?

Sat Jun 25, 2005 20:28

Hi

I am amazed that the "recognised unions" in Dublin Bus get away with the things they do. They do not actually represent their members they represent the company. Drivers are being harassed and bullied buses are not being maintained properly and ther are many more serious problems but the unions SIPTU and NBRU do nothing and if a driver stands up to them they are "gutted" this is done by the unions in collusion with management.

The question is (and maybe this will answer the question as to why the IWU is needed) the following:

IF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE TO PROTECT YOU ACTUALLY VICTIMISE YOU WHERE DO YOU GO FOR HELP?
Especially if they and your employer put up a united front and simply say you are a troublemaker.

People then do not believe you as to what is going on and they are free to make sure that either you toe the line or you are sacked, and with only the 2 unions able to represent you there is no chance of getting any justice....

Or maybe if you are too vocal and effective they will simply trump up charges and expel you from the union

any comments???????

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

The Blind Alley of the IWU

Comments (19 of 19)