Who runs the union?

by Colm Fri May 26, 2006 19:31

all the members run the union it is there union afterall.

by Patrique - NIPSA Fri May 26, 2006 22:37

Not according to the President who just yesterday told me, and witnesses, that NIPSA means General Council. He said it twice.

by Con Stitution Sat May 27, 2006 00:20

You cannot use one part of a constitution and ignore others. I assume like most Unions if motions are ruled out of order a reason will be given that will relate to an article in your constitution. If you read up it may well be that there is a sound reason for ruling motions out of order for example you may not be able to instruct your general council to take an action if the action can only be carried out at the instruction of your conference. It is of course possible that your President is wrong but he should know the rules.

by patrique - nipsa Sat May 27, 2006 01:07

I agree, he should know the rules.

by all knowing all seeing Wed May 31, 2006 19:25

Could it be that Patrique and his Merry tribe are a little upset that a bulk of their own motions have been rule out of order, we all know who runs the union, its GC and only GC. the President has the power to rule any motion out of order, who gave them that power, the members. maybe a rule amendment is needed to take these powers back, go for it patrique althought you will need the support of 2/3 of the delegates, abuse edited out

by Alacrity - The men who won't wear suits Thu Jun 01, 2006 13:21

What is the difference between someone who is jobshadowing two headmasters and a member of the SWP?

One sticks to their principles

This of course should not be seen as something which is necessarily a bad thing as principles can be redetermined, however the infiltration of NIPS by these bizarre uninclusive left wing parties is to be resisted. It is the members of NIPSA who should determine the policy. However in electing a General Council the members put their faith in these people to provide the best representation and GC can be changed annually. It is more the lack of voters in these elections which should worry us more.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Fri Jun 02, 2006 17:47

The President was right to rule the motions out of order on Wednesday - they were not written properly and his explanation was clear. Advice on Reference Back motions is clear - don't got for all of them - pick one that you have a bit of a chance with. All Branch 8 did during the week was piss people off and alienate themselves from other Branch's at the Conference.

Still, maybe next year there'll be more time to discuss Branch 8's motions especially now as Trevor is elected to the General Council - with Branch 8's help. Tut tut Patrique.

Big Brother

by Patrique - nipsa Fri Jun 02, 2006 19:31

Most successful conference I have been at since being in Branch 8. The support of numerous reps, who will go back and try and organise their branches and members, was touching and welcome. Thanks to you all. Did Trevor get on CSGE? I missed the results. Who else got on?

As for the above posts, we always believed card votes came under rule 5.12, the same one that covers acclamation, or doesn't as it turns out. But the chair did act constitutionally, albeit a bit like a despot. And thanks to all of those who supported us in the vote, and on the bus to Dundonald, we nearly got the two thirds vote.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Fri Jun 02, 2006 21:36

Your post is a little curious. I could have swore you didn't go to Dundonald Patrique because you spoke on the Jim McCusker motion - nothing like your Branch supporting your fellow Trade Unionists - irrespective of politics - although I do know that very few from Reclaim The Union were there.

It was strange that when the President handed over to the Vice-President the proceedings became farcical - some thought that would happen when the President was there.

Big Brother

by patrique - nipsa Fri Jun 02, 2006 22:19

Oh my God, I am 976 peopel. There are 976 Patriques. That frightens even me.

I know I do a lot, but even I cannot do the work of 976 people.

The Branch 8 people on the bus, are they in Branch 8, or is branch 8 me?

All the people at Branch 8 who turn up to mandating and committee and all members meetings, are they all me? Are they in the branch, or is it just me? Am I imagining things, or do we not have about 30 committed reps on the committee? Are they all me?

Am I "Superrep?"

Or does "Big Brother", as the name suggests, not recognise the members? When members are mentioned does "Big Brother" respond "The who?".

Having said that, Big Brother realised I was representing members at conference, hence the need to split our forces, some at Dundonald, some at conference. Perhaps BB is confused, badly informed, or maybe has a personal grudge, as distinct to case.

Could someone please add something challenging and interesting to this debate?

Goodbye for now, until the next time, Conference was exhausting, but ultimately very rewarding.

And a word of thanks to the reps who manned the union room in our/my absence. Or was that me?

by stroppy Sat Jun 03, 2006 01:23

Patrique word reaches me that you were contacted by a leading member of Telling Fibs Continuously from a bus telling /advising/begging you to disrupt Conference by any means possible to stop motions being discussed in case some of the motions the Socialist Party find important were lost . Could this be true?
A Trevor was elected to the CSGE but I dont know if he is the object of your affection.
I have'nt got all the results yet but to use soccer parlance, 'Peter H your boys took a hell of a beating' or at least those in TFC not in the 'Socialist 'Party as SP only vote for themselves everyone else in TFC being for them merely useful fools.
Looking at the SP paper they circulated at Conference it doesnt seem likely that capitalism is gong to be overturned any time soon. The vanguard of the proletariat seem to think that Branch Funds ,election of officials and a political fund will topple the IMF and World Bank and bring about a spontaneous coming together of the working classes where leaders of the group will have to survive on a joint annual salary equal to the GDP of Togo.

by O - NIPSA Sat Jun 03, 2006 13:47

Sloppy

Interesting point on the results.

I presume you are making the point that TFC took a beating in elections for the various bodies at conference? Would you care to elaborate? How exactly did TFC take a beating?

by Big Brother - NIPSA Sat Jun 03, 2006 17:09

TFC got fairly well beaten in the Civil Service side but continue to dominate the POG side of the house. I don't think Brian Moore did himself any favours with the cockup that was Thursday afternoon.

Big Brother

by O - NIPSA Sat Jun 03, 2006 19:17

As far as I can work it out TFC went from 9 CSE members too 8. Some excellent TFC activists where not elected but hardly a hammering!

by stroppy Sat Jun 03, 2006 19:30

Yes indeed the dominance of TFC on the POG side amply demonstrated by the amazing shrinking agenda at their conference, the committee members certainly wont be taxed dealing with action points from the motions discussed. I have nt seen all the results but I understand that the RYU ticket stood up very well against TFC on all counts which is going to create a few headaches for Hadden when he writes up on the outcome of Conference.
Still no word from Patrique on the phone call from the bus hopefully he has not had to go on the run over his failure/inability to carry out orders.

by patrique - nipsa Sat Jun 03, 2006 20:55

I was informed that the person who disallowed a card vote on Tuesday, was trying to contact me by phone from the bus, to call for a card vote, in the hope of wasting time. Another unaligned member of TFC castigated that person, much to the delight of the other passengers who laughed and cheered. This is hearsay on my part, as I was representing Branch 8 members interests at Conference.

Branch 8 do not win voters, we win respect. Much more important, because a union obsessed with elections, is not doing its job, which is representing members.

by stroppy Sat Jun 03, 2006 21:53

Au contraire Ah -ha GSCE elections are a positive delight for me. Afraid your outing is short of the mark a case of not being au courant, as time will tell.
Patrique the field narrows considerably if the bus caller disallowed a card vote. Hopefully this person is not still in a position to call the shots on card votes as intent to cause wilful disruption to Conference is unlikely to go down well with members. Most people would see this type of behaviour as anti democratic so it looks like the 'fighting democratic' bit is going to have to be just 'fighting' from now on.

by Certainly not above the parapet - NIPSA Sat Jun 03, 2006 23:21

It should be obviousnow Patrique, the president along with standing orders run the union witmess the comment by a leading TFC person on the PO side as for freedom of speech I thinkt hat went down the tubes apart from yourself who was loud enough to shout them down

by Geoff Cowden - branch 8 member Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:53

Was anyone else confused about Branch 8 trying to remit their own motion at civil service conference? I suppose it can be put down to naivety or ignorance of the constitution but was this not topped when they actually spoke against one of their own motions which was composited later on. I suppose a members mandate doesn’t mean much when there is such lunacy afoot.

Anyway stay tuned for the punch line to the joke “How many branch officers does it take to ignore a racist comment about the Afghan hunger strikers from a “committed rep”.

I shit you not, you couldn’t make it up.

by What about the truth - Nipsa Conference delegate Sun Jun 04, 2006 16:56

I was at the Nipsa conference. Branch 8 had two motions on racism. One called for Nipsa to campign against racist parties such as the BNP. The other was about exposing the myths on immigration, ie. the migrant workers put much more into the economy than they take out.

While not being a Branch 8 member it would appear that Branch 8 are resolutely anti-racist. The slur by Geoff is a disgrace.

by No egos here - NIPSA Sun Jun 04, 2006 19:02

I was a first time delegate at this years Conference and whilst I did not agree with everything branch 8 said and did, they had two motions on the agenda which sought to tackle racism and opposed some motions in the hope of offering real debate. I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention the Afghan Hunger Strikers Geoff, but it is a disgrace that a standing member of Group Executive would point score against one of their own branches and use this issue to do so. I am not sure if you were re elected to Group Executive. I hope not . You are capable only of internalisng debate and have forgotten who it is we are fighting in this Union. Your own ego is clearly in the way. Wise up and start looking outwards.

by patrique - nipsa Sun Jun 04, 2006 19:35

Editor's note: understadable condemnation of a previous abusive post has been edited out, because that post has itself, now, been hidden.

I am interested to discover how Geoff seems to know so much about the Branch 8 committee, as he is not a union rep. Obviously information is being leaked.

And some e-mails go astray, such as the ones Geoff was sending last Wednesday, and I don't even return to work until Tuesday.

Enough of these trivial matters. Branch 8 were unwilling to withdraw Motion number 3, so we hoped to get it remitted. The easiest way to do this is to feign ignorence of the constitution, and try to do it yourself, thereby alerting the McGinley family to come to our aid. Easier than relying on telepathy. Such political experience is gathered over the years.

As for Presidents being right about the legality/non-legality of motions, the President actually agrees with me that the Constitution contradicts itself, and needs to be re-drawn, if we ever find the time. As for his offer to show us how to submit motions, the person who submitted two of the motions says that he does not need help from whipper snappers, hardly in the union, and relatively inexperienced when compared to the person who submitted the motions. As for the other 5, not only are they constitutionally correct, they could be used as examples to all branches as to how motions should be written. Every single word is from the constitution.

But Branch 8 are happy enough with the rulings. Little point in wasting 5 seconds of the legal experts time, 5 seconds spent finding in our favour could be usefully spent elsewhere.

Finally, Mr Stroppy, were you not on the bus to Dundonald, even commenting on the card vote debacle?

by Patrique - nipsa Sun Jun 04, 2006 19:38

By the way, I seriously doubt if that is really Geoff posting above. The fact that it mentions members mandates would suggest otherwise.

by stroppy Mon Jun 05, 2006 00:55

Patrique you are a tad too presumptous Mr is not a title I use. I was not on the bus and indeed was not in Newcastle when the femme fatale rang to persuade you to disrupt Conference.
I can however confirm that I am not in Branch 8 and believe it is unfortunate that there seems to be some infighting in the branch. The attacks on your branch and named individuals seem somewhat petty, in my view it is commendable for branches to put forward motions and have the balls to speak to them irrespective of the outcome of the vote. I also believe that you have been honest in your posts which I also strive to be, so while I am happy for Ah-ha to cast insults in my direction I take exception to being called a liar. So Ah-ha give me some examples of the 'untruths' I have posted.
Patrique I assume you agree that if the 'hearsay' you refer to is correct then the person who sought to disrupt Conference is not fit to hold office on any of the committees that run NIPSA between Conferences.

by O - NIPSA Mon Jun 05, 2006 01:00

Here sloppy, no word of those election results yet?:)

by stroppy Mon Jun 05, 2006 01:07

Q I will have all the results tomorrow but given your silly intervention I have to assume that a TFC candidate must have taken the Vice President and Treasurer posts.

by patrique - nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 01:49

Ms? Stroppy, I am afraid I could not comment on your question above, in regard to the fate of the phone caller. Even if I agreed what could be done?

SEVEN times in a row on Wednesday morning Conference voted for Stalinism/Democratic Centralism, and SEVEN times in a row rejected the Constitution which clearly states in Rule 5.1 that Conference has sovereignty, for wont of a better word. In short, CSGE will have to make that decision, branches and members do not have a voice. Conference is merely a pretence. A place for some of us to rail against the trend.

I am heartened by the posts above, for as I said, we would rather win respect than votes. Everytime we influence delegates to go back to work and organise their branch, we feel we have achieved something. It could turn out to be the most right wing branch in history, but at least it would be organised, and working for the members.

by Patrique - nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 01:54

By the way. Did we look like a branch that was having problems, and disunited? The so called infighting occurs on this website. There is little problem in the work place.

by i'm back Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:45

How do you win respect from other branches Patrique when all you did was abuse the floor, really telling the delegates they should be at the beach instead of the hall really sends a good message back to the members, conference is recorded so members will see what you said.

Are you saying Geoff was correct when a racist comment was made by a branch 8 committee member and no body from the branch ask the rep to resign. That in itself is a disgrace not Geoff’s comments highlighting the problem in that branch

i think speaking against your own motion shows how organised your branch is!!!

by Sometime Supporter - Nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 14:29

I am a sometime supporter of the branch 8 merry band and spoke to a number of them at conference this year. They struck me as resolute trade unionists. To answer your question Patrique, no you don't seem like a branch disunited. My own branch had 3 delegates attending and at at one stage or another all of them remarked on the committment of your branch and how well they spoke. Now you may not always be right but for gods sake keep it up. An active branch is refreshing and important amidst the current quagmire of pessimism and electioneering.

by patrique - nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 16:28

Submitting a motion demanding back pay has absolutely nothing to do with asking for pay scales to be reduced to 5 years. As no-one has moved up the scales for 3 or 4 years, anyone with an inkling of how branch 8 members felt about this would realise that we were mandated to oppose Composite motion 6, anyone who was interested in motions rather than elections that is. If the Stalinists want to suggest that there is a similarity, well one would have to be incredible naive to think that they were right, unless one was in league with the Stalinists. Speaking against this Composite motion does indeed illustrate how politically adapt we have become, as some of us now read the motions. As a former A-Level politics teacher, perhaps I should hold training classes in the union room, for those who wish to learn.

As for the alleged racist remarks, the leaks from the committee now mean that not all replies are sent to all committee members. Therefore your source has been cut off, so you will have no idea what was done about the alleged racist remarks.

And having witnessed your remarkably political naivity, I wouldn't get embroilled in an argument with the alleged perpetrator, as he is light years above some of the contributers to this thread, politically that is.

Finally, does anyone else find this insane obsession of attacking the united Branch 8 COMMITTEE boring. The dissadents allied themselves to TFC, attending meetings for over a year and such. No harm in that per se, it is just that Branch 8 do not really care that much for elections to a Stalinist grouping.

As for going to the beach, well, if you have just voted SEVEN times in favour of having no power whatsoever, seems like the smart thing to do, thereby saving the unions money. Why contribute to a pretence. Even a seasoned thespian such as myself would have difficulty in playing such a role.

Finally, finally, read some of the sensible posts above, instead of being in constant denial. As I said, we do not win votes, we win respect, from ALL sides, right and left. That sustains us in our hour of need.

by patrique - nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 16:32

As a qualified English teacher as well, I confess that "adapt" in the above post should read "adept". hopefully this should illustrate to my opponents that I am not "God", or infallible. I always knew that.

by dave topping - conference delegate Mon Jun 05, 2006 16:38

I was at Conference, representing Branch 8. I spoke on a motion relating to the use of statistics during the CS Group Conference, argued on a reference back motion, which was later proven correct by other branches who came to me at lunchtime and after the conference finished.

I also spoke in support of the motion regarding the draconian cuts in nursing places, having personal experience to back up what I said, and also spoke on workplace bullying, during the afternoon fiasco in the conference hall, whilst Patrique and other members went to Dundonald.

This was my first conference, I was nervous as hell (nearly chucked in the loos outside the conference hall) and I was given many messages of support and compliments regarding the delivery and eloquence of my speeches, like other delegates for the branch, we were complimented on how we spoke during our motions and this is a credit to the branch. Yes, we did create a stir on Wednesday morning and yes, it was well worth it.

I was also successful in making contacts with other branches, both on CSG and POG, because I feel that's another reason to be at conference: to meet people, share points of view and get all important contact points. Therefore, to whomever said that we were alienating... obviously this person didn't go to the same Conference that I went to!

Sure, we had a numbers of motions ruled out of order. It's only right that these be argued. Sure, Patrique was at his hand waving best, good on him, The President and Vice President were surely reminded that Branch 8 doesn't go to conference to be quiet.

Now I am not going to comment regarding leaks of emails to non-branch committee members, as I feel that is business which should be kept in the branch and Secretary Patrique can deal with all queries.

Thank you very much

Dave T

by CB - nipsa Mon Jun 05, 2006 17:14

Boring in the extreme Patrique. If Geoff and his idiot supporters concerned themselves with what was really going on in the CSA - a regime style management, a stack of personal cases, possible closure, another looming pay dispute etc etc.. they may well discover the trade unionists within - or am i being too kind?

by THE ICEMAN Mon Jun 05, 2006 21:58

Why are people so concerned with Geoff? He’s committed the worst kind of political suicide! I have heard rumours of a possible sectarian statement by him so I would suggest we give him no more airtime, and concentrate on the main issues here such as the SEELB boards attempt to discriminate against special needs children. That’s the real bread and butter trade union stuff, this is what Geoff and any other electioneers need to be focussing on.

by TMcK - NIPSA Mon Jun 05, 2006 23:28

I doubt if a damascene experience will bring those individuals round to that way of thinking, but you are quite right to move the debate on.
It was hilarious to watch some members of the SEELB board squirm at being surrounded by the scourge of the working class! What wasn't funny was their readiness to vote in cuts time and time again. The meeting has only been adjourned and nipsa, unison and the teachers unions need to be there in strength and number when it reconvenes.

by Confused Tue Jun 06, 2006 13:01

Branch 8 brought forward an anti bullying motion to conference.
Seems that doesn't apply to their own branch, where as stated in a previous thread by Patrique, committee members are being excluded from committee emails.
Surely excluding someone or ignoring them etc is all forms of bullying.
Shame on those who would do such a thing and shame on those who stand by and let it happen.
This behaviour is a disgrace.

by brian broth - Kaiser Chief Tue Jun 06, 2006 16:52

I think the theme tune for this years conference should be...."I predict a Riot " lol

by patrique - nipsa Tue Jun 06, 2006 20:07

Dear Confused,

Indeed you are. Spreading false allegations about someone to the entire committee would be bullying and harassment. So when the matter arises, one communicates directly with the "Accused". That avoids trial by media, such as this website, and hysteria. These matters are treated like personal cases, although someone was splashing those about the website as well.

Alleged racism is a lot different from racism. We used to have a rep who claimed that he/she used to sell the Combat 18 magazine. Rather than begin a witch hunt we assumed in was either a joke, or something from the past. We hope this present allegation is the same.

I really would like to have meaningful, inteligent dialogue through this medium, the internet, but it is proving to be elusive due to a few people who turn everything in a personal crusade. Automatically one person, the leaker, believes he/she is being excluded. That would be a form of harassment I agree, unless we used the old in "The National Interest" argument. Our problem is not committee members getting e-mails, it is every committee in NIPSA getting our e-mails.

But enough of this gay banter. What about conference everyone? Any opinions on how things went, irrespective of who runs the union.
Sensible answers only please. I enjoy banter, but MOPEs get tedious. (Most oppressed people ever)

by Patrique - nipsa Tue Jun 06, 2006 20:08

As for riots, Brian Broth, 29 against 1 would be bullying and harassment.

by stroppy Tue Jun 06, 2006 20:14

I understand the Conference went very well with little dissension on the motions discussed however the disgraceful attempt to disrupt it by an ex president casts a shadow of shame over the whole event.

by Patrique - nipsa Tue Jun 06, 2006 21:54

Now Stroppy, are you going to tell me the right wing wouldn't have tried the same thing? As far as I can see, that's the problem. Give me a united Rainbow Co-alition for ONE year, achieve ONE thing together, and I would be happy. Someone at conference, well to the fore in one of the factions, told me they would reject a 20% pay offer, if the "wrong" leadership got it. And this person expected me to do the same.

It fills you with confidence for the coming CS pay claim, does it not. I can just see me saying to a meeting of about 500 members; "We were offered 20% on pay, but the right/left got it so I want you all to reject it. The other side can get us 2%".

Not a good idea in our branch.

by stroppy Wed Jun 07, 2006 01:26

Patrique
As you are aware there are right wingers on the so called left and left wingers on the so called right. The reality is that wilful disruption of Conference is shameful no matter which group tries it on but you have to admit there is a hypocrisy about an individual who rallies the troops behind a 'democratic union' call when her actions are the antithesis of democratic behaviour.
It is the political direction given from outside to a core group within TFC that has created division within the union. Their 'Voice' of the people is used to hijack any victory no matter how small as being their victory rather than as a victory for NIPSA members . I dont know if the person you spoke to came from this grouping but I am concerned that there are those who will seek to undermine the quest for a just pay settlement for their own selfish ends and attack fellow members rather than the proper target of management and government. I dont really give a shit who claims responsibility for getting a decent pay rise as long as we get one but it will be a victory for the members not for some self promoting micro political grouping.

by O - NIPSA Wed Jun 07, 2006 09:34

Gossip, off the cuff comment and bad taste jokes blown out of proportion as examples of political inadequacy, personal lives of activists dragged through the mud. Is this what NIPSA has become?

This is shameful stuff, those NIPSA members participating in such a level of debate should catch themselves on.

Everyone reading this thread should be aware that you are reading the views of four or five people promoting factional and personal interests, the other 44,000 NIPSA members have a different agenda.

by Typical member - Typical branch Mon Jun 12, 2006 13:53

I don't.

by The Horned Beast Of Armageddon - Groomsport Popular Front Tue Jun 13, 2006 13:43

Neither do I.Perhaps 'O' can tell us how many of the Socialist Party's 83 Northern Ireland members are in Nipsa and who exactly they purport to speak for.Give me the open and honest approach of Patrique and his merry band of Uncivil Servants any day over these pretentious windbags.

by Patrique - Nipsa Wed Jun 14, 2006 23:22

I obviously don't run the union either, but one can but try to make some difference. I thank the beast of Armageddon out of here for his/her kind comments.

by stroppy Thu Jun 15, 2006 00:06

Patrique you should know that constitutionally the General Council run the Union between Conferences. The Civil Service Group Executive also take a lead role in dealing with civil service issues, so the Central Whitley negotiating committees that Executive Committee members are elected on to play an important role. Word reaches me that some leading TFC members declined to sit on some of these committees including the important one dealing with Workplace 2010. An ex President, very vocal about this issue, apparently declined a chance to take the fight on Workplace 2010 to the belly of the beast. Now it may be that she is too busy with her new part time job as a bus conductor but a cynic might suspect that there are some who are waiting in the wings to attack fellow members willing to take their place on important committees. Worth keeping an eye on how things develop over the year.

by Captain Stoutheart - Malone Road Young Defenders(76th Ice Pick Battalion) Fri Jun 16, 2006 13:56

Also worth keeping an eye on are copies of a number of Socialist Party policy documents sneaked out of their Conference in Maynooth in April by undercover volunteers.These are currently going the rounds and I would not wish to spoil anyone's enjoyment by leaking too much in advance.However,one wonders how Telling Fibs Continuously's cadre of Useful Fools(ie those non-Party members,mostly if not exclusively from DSD,who do the donkey work and then get shafted by the 'Comrades' who only vote for themselves in elections)will react to the news that their faction is a sub-group of the Socialist Party,controlled by its REC and NEC(Regional and National Executive Committees)or that the whole point of provoking and becoming involved in industrial action is recruitment to the Party.To think that some naive elements might have wistfully imagined that it had something to do with fighting for the members.......... watch this space.

by patrique - nipsa Fri Jun 16, 2006 19:05

Oh dear.

by stroppy Sat Jun 17, 2006 18:49

OH DEAR OH DEAR is right Patrique. I had been interested in your conversation with someone to the fore of one of the 'factions' who would reject a 20% pay offer if the 'wrong' leadership got it. This type of mindset seems to be ingrained in the thought processes of Paul Dale a leading Socialist Party member, at the core of TFC, who wrote a piece for the latest edition of The Socialist paper. Paul declares that 'the key task facing all activists in the union' is 'to challenge and defeat the right wing'. Your hope for a rainbow coalition of likeminded members uniting to attack New Labour and its management lackeys seems doomed as the energies of the Socialist Party at least will be channelled into attacks on the mythical right wing. As both the current President and previous President are also leading members of the SP it would be useful to know if they support Paul as attacks on the right wing did'nt seem to form part of their agenda at Conference.
If as one hopes Paul has got it wrong it will be one of a few mistakes in his piece for the Socialist :-
(i) Paul tells us Conference backed a motion calling for a socialist Venezuela. I must admit I had thought Chavez had already sorted that but he obviously has'nt played it according to the bible of comrade Hadden
(ii) Paul tells us that the argument on political funds was won at Conference, pity the members who rejected the motion yet again did'nt seem to realise they backed the wrong side of the argument
(iii) Paul declares that 'members were rightly angered by the strike ballot on pay which was narrowly lost'. I thought that members welcomed the strike ballot on pay I believe they were rightly angered by the pay offer.
Can't wait for the next edition of The Socialist to check the War News section for an update on the 'War Against the Right Wing'. Probably wont be anything about Workplace 2010 as TFC refused to sit on the Cenral Whitley negotiating committee dealing with this issue.

by Patrique - nipsa Mon Jun 19, 2006 23:33

My Dear Stroppy,

We may be unlikely bedfellows at present, although I agree with a lot of what you and Captain Stoutheart say, especially that bit about when it comes to voting, many TFC members whom I consider to be good trade unionists are shafted for the sake of the party.

However I cannot go along with the idea of a mythical right wing. There is a right wing, and their efforts at supporting a non-payment of water charges campaign has been shameful, to quote someone else from conference. The right wing are too cautious, believing that members will not support strike action. Two years ago they would have, the shambles that ensued that year meant that the ballot was narrowly defeated this year. This year, given another insulting pay offer, I believe the members might vote for all out strike, if we had a united CSGE who fully supported this, and planned for it. And planning does not mean repeating all of Ryan McKinney's ideas a week before the ballot, after ruling all those ideas out as unworkable at the extraordinary conference at the Kings Hall. If we had implemented the ideas then, it may have made a difference.

And a strike is the only WMD that a union has. Given about 70% support we would win in about three days, given that the CS has a hand in nearly everything in this country. If a strike was not supported, it would be lost in three days, but it still might scare management. At present, all they have to fear is more motions from branch 27 condemning the bounders. And never forget, we live in the only country in the "alleged" free world where a worker's strike brought down the government. So we know it works.

That's why I believe we need a rainbow coalition, because CSGE is never united in its plans, and one side will always try to undermine the other, to blame the latest pay debacle on the other side, in the hope of winning lousy votes for CSGE or General Council. I say lousy votes because I still say it doesn't matter who leads the union if there is no-one to lead. Hence the real need for a branch development officer.

And I believe the argument for the political fund was won at conference, the vote was lost, although I have yet to be told the result. At our Branch committee meeting 15 out of 16 reps voted against the political fund. At conference, 8 of the same people were swayed by the argument, and all nine delegates supported the motion. However we were mandated to vote against, and we try to represent our members, and we have 976 votes. Next year could be different.

However the basic fact remains that while we have constant bickering between two factions, we will get nowhere. And we don't even get the truth. An example. I was led to believe that the idea for all out strike ballot was proposed by the Branch 8 people who used to be on CSGE, supported by the RIGHT wing. TFC were hedging their bets. At conference I was told the complete opposite. Perhaps these meetings should be recorded in future.

by stroppy Tue Jun 20, 2006 02:07

Patrique I would have no problem getting into bed with you or any other activist willing to work for the good of all members. The leading 'rightwinger' who spoke on water charges at Conference was out all day collecting signatures for a campaign of opposition when TFC and the SP were no where to be seen. I have no problem with a well planned non payment campaign but the turn out at public meetings does not inspire confidence that the public are behind a mass non payment campaign. It is also the case that it is the poorest who always get shit on in any campaign of this nature. If you enjoy the type of joint income earned by the golden couple of the SP then you can bank the water charge money in case the courts come calling but if you are a minimum wage couple with kids you wont have that luxury.
A rainbow coalition is not possible as long as the SP form the core of TFC as industrial action is only a means to an end for them ie the enrichment of the SP.
The information you got at conference about the pay dispute is incorrect. There was unanimity on the CSGE, that based on members views expressed at the Kings Hall, all out action was the only way to go. It was some SP members of TFC who having rubbished selective action in the first dispute argued it should have been used this year and that all out action was wrong .This principled position of course only emerged when the vote was lost. I understand that the Chairperson of the CSGE (see comments on bus conductor) had the good grace to be embarassed by these errant members of her party. Check the CSGE minutes and you will find someone is trying to make mischief and I bet it isnt someone from the 'right wing'.
I dont think you really believe that a political fund would be used to foil the BNP plan to take over the world. You and I both know it is a trojan horse to allow SP to hijack NIPSAs funds and name for its own ends. A fund of that nature would be divisive as many claim the mantle of socialism and I know some members would not support a NIPSA calling for Fianna Fail organising in the six counties.
I have asked for the left agenda of the so called left to be outlined on a number of occasions but no reply has been forthcoming one can only assume the cupboard is bare. What I do know is that for the SP it is fuck all to do with fighting for all the members and getting stuck into management .Paul Dale has let the cat out of the bag it is about beating members who prefer not to stand outside the tent pissing in.

by The Coelacanth - Deep Sea Divers Club Tue Jun 20, 2006 15:17

I wouldn't call the campaign of sectarian thuggery and murderous violence of the UDA and co. a 'workers' strike', having experienced it at first hand-it's doubtful if the UDA can even pass muster as an equal opportunities employer these days given their shocking and ungrateful treatment of former CSA staff Ihab and Andre('it was my own money') Shoukri.As for a 70% turnout for a CS strike-dream on.Entire vote last time was 64%,with a majority against of almost 1,000.A 'victory' would have been a disaster-Government would cheerfully have sat back and let it collapse,destroying the union in the process.Any E xecutive Committee stupid enough to try that again will get a nasty recepion on the ground.Our low paid members who voted for the strike did so with gritted teeth,conscious that the Executive were playing into Hain's hands and fearful of being called 'scab' by the SP Executive members with fat salaries,flash cars, expensive houses and obscenely bulging bank accounts who unlike most of the ordinary members on the ground actually could afford to stay out indefinitely. I am interested in Captain Stoutheart's exposure of the SP-I have long suspected this.Perhaps the Captain could leak us some more while we wait for the bootleg copy documents to hit the branches?

by Sean - nipsa Tue Jun 20, 2006 15:23

Maybe nipsa needs a political fund to campaign against the socialist party.Their a right shower of wankers,I was sitting beside some of them one night at conference and they hate everybody they cant control.Thier contol freaks,nothing more.

by Patrique - nipsa Tue Jun 20, 2006 19:23

I am aware that the political fund is not to thwart the BNP, although such a group could do reasonably well here, they have little hope in England because Nationalism in England extends to soccer matches, not politics. A few council seats as a protest against New Labour, but that's it.

However a political fund could help us, the country at large, to move away from sectarian politics, by highlighting real concerns, such as water charges. I realise the union often ends up in the pocket of the politicians, such as Unison and the sell out on pensions, but it could achieve something.

As for a strike, Branch 8 supported the strike, and we did not see any SP people. We believe, one way or the other, it would be over in three days. No point in carrying on if it is not supported. No point in putting in a pay claim if the most we are prepared to do is condemn people at conference.

I am aware that the 1974 strike had things going for it, such as thugs and the Government paying for it via supplementary benefit, but it is still possible. If no-one works, the poorly paid lose a few bob, the rich lose millions. Yes, it is that simple.

As for the SP being control freaks, well I must say they convinced many that Branch 8 was an SWP stronghold on the strength of ONE member out of 998 being in the SWP. But I suppose that is propaganda. I do know they don't vote for me because they see me as beyond control, and beyond the pale as a potential vote loser who rocks the boat.

But I can live with that.

by stroppy Wed Jun 21, 2006 01:00

Come on Patrique the BNP will find the ground they want to occupy is already taken up by the UDA and UVF and despite the latters links with Reg Empey I dont think the BNP will want to take them on. If you accept that the SP will not be part of any broad campaign that they cant control then there can be no advantage for NIPSA in having a political fund. The SP will try and destroy any rainbow coalition that does'nt share their world view because that is what they do. Given the position adopted by Paul Dale we could have the ridiculous position where a fund paid for by members is used to support a micro political party within NIPSA to oppose members opposed to NIPSA backing a political party or parties.
By the way you never did answer the question on whether someone who should uphold the constitution but deliberately tried to disrupt conference is fit to hold office.

by Patrique - nipsa Wed Jun 21, 2006 22:00

Stroppy, methinks you doth protest too much about this "crime". There are those stalking the corridors of power who have done much, much worse, unworthy of trade unionists, united together for the good of the workers. Despicable actions, aimed at destroying fellow trade unionists, and disenfranchising them.

In comparison, the crime of attempting to disrupt conference pales into insignificance. In effect this is merely an extension of the old obstruction policy, introduced into British Politics by the Irish Parliamentary Party in the late 19th century.

I was however shocked that I was to be the instrument of choice to carry out this disruption. That shows a complete lack of judgement, or as one of the bus passengers put it so nicely "After what you f...ing did on Tuesday". Certainly an inability to judge the mood of the mob, represented as always by Branch 8, whom many of our leaders take for granted as "rent a mob".

We can live with that. They still respect us.

by stroppy Thu Jun 22, 2006 00:44

OK Patrique no real problem with your analysis but I still think the actions of the ex-president were undemocratic and unbecoming of an officer of NIPSA.
You will note from the phone call that it is not only non-SP members of TFC that the SP try to treat as 'useful fools'. It was noticed that some speakers from your Branch who spoke well at Conference were targeted by the SP, presumably in an attempt to increase their membership from the 83 quoted by The Beast. Hopefully you wont succumb to the 'charms' of the SP because I quite enjoy our little discussions and would not like them to descend into responses to 'Haddenspeak'. Buenos Noches.

by Lieutenant Pigeon - Mouldy Old Dough Corps Thu Jun 22, 2006 14:15

In response to 'The Coelacanth' above,I have been authorised by Captain Stoutheart to go public with a few quotes from SP National Conference papers 'Building the Socialist Party' and 'Northern Perspectives' in the interests of revealing the truth about these cerebrally challenged onanists.On TFC and similar front groups:'Our union caucuses are sub committees of the Party(not separate entities),which should work under the guidance of the RECs andthe NEC....the most significant purpose of these caucuses is to discuss and to organise our recruitment work within the unions,and linked to this is a drive on the sales of our paper,journal and fundraising.' Anyone told the Useful Fools or the members yet?Here's the Party line on Trades Councils:'There is a lack of activists representing workplaces in bodies such as trades councils.In many cases,these trades councils are made up of ex-trade union activists who no longer represent workplaces.While we should keep a watching brief in case these bodies should start to fill out,this is not a likely immediate prospect and therefore work in these bodies is not a prioity at the moment.' There's solidarity with the workers for you!Anyone told the Trades Councils yet?On themselves:'The superiority of our ideas and methods have already been shown in many recent disputes.....as in the unions, so in every other field of our work.Our role as revolutionaries is not to sit passively and wait on events to mve the working class in our direction-it is to intervene to influence and help shape these events.....There is always a danger that,like the ultra left sects,we can have an exaggerated view of our own importance.' Surely not,Comrades!Though for a sect so obsessed with recritment,you're not very good at it,are you?Listen to this(except The H orned Beast Of Armageddon,who already has this info):'At last year's Conference we set a target to increase membership in the South from 199 to 275 and in the North from 85 to 110 by September 2005.The current membership in the South is 175 and in the North is 83.' Tsk!Tsk!Looks like the Revolution will have to wait abit longer.Discuss!

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Jun 22, 2006 14:46

There have been quite a few of these bizarre threads about NIPSA recently, which pretty much everyone bar the same handful of mostly anonymous individuals quite understandably seem to steer clear of. They are bordering on the completely incomprehensible at times and when they can be made sense of there seems to be a preponderance of right wing trade union hacks throwing bile around. I'm obviously reluctant to get involved, but one thing towards the end of this thread did catch my attention - some misleading remarks about the structure of the Socialist Party's trade union activism.

The Socialist Party has a caucus of members in various trade unions where we have enough members to operate one. These caucuses are internal Socialist Party bodies which exist to coordinate our work in those unions, discuss our views on issues facing the union, organise recruitment, distribute our written material and so on. Caucuses of this kind are very useful organisational tools and we hope to establish them in as many unions as possible. They are not however open to people outside of the Socialist Party.

Quite seperate from these bodies are the broad activist groups we participate in within trade unions. These groups include organisations like the CPSU Activist, NIPSA Time for Change, PSEU Activist and so on. These activist groups are not internal bodies of the Socialist Party, but are instead broad organisations of the left in those unions. In some of the activist groups Socialist Party members play a leading role, in others we are more peripheral. In all of them many people who are not members of the Socialist Party participate.

I'm not sure if our muck-raking friends above are confused or simply spreading malicious untruths. Given that we are talking about union bureaucrats I tend to suspect the latter. But hopefully this will have cleared up any confusion.

by patrique - nipsa Thu Jun 22, 2006 23:41

Hopefully Mark is not referring to me as a right wing union bureaucrat. Fortunately I appear to be too left wing for the SP, the type of person who could allow you to be labelled "the looney Left" and therefore lose votes. New Labour have taught some people something.

As you can see from above my dear Stroppy, the chances of my being in the Socialist party are nil. Apart from possible losing votes, my friend was in the SWP, and that to them is worse than the BNP.

Perhaps the political fund is to oppose the SWP.

by The Devil - Branch 666 Fri Jun 23, 2006 13:37

Patrique,be a good fellow and let me know where the corridors of power are where all this stalking is going on as I'd rather like to join in.Sounds like my sort of gig and anyhow,I could do with the exercise.

by Mark P Fri Jun 23, 2006 14:21

No Patrique, I was not referring to you as a right wing bureaucrat. To be honest I can't make enough sense of most of your posts to characterise you in any way. I was describing some of your sparring partners here as right wing union bureaucrats.

by Red Fred Fri Jun 23, 2006 20:58

Mark, cacauses not open to non sp members, looks like you have sprung a leak . Patrique of course you will never be sp same documents state "at the same time many other forces including some of our former members and groups such as the SWP have effectively abandoned the cructial task of building a revolutionary party" and thats who you are regarded as being linked with.
So lets get it straight SP despise the SWP ,the same with Communities against water charges "set up by former members of our party" (imagine community workers serving their community instead of the sp the horror of it all) and as for Belfast trade council well the sp can't play with them as they are regarded as being commie led .
However the quote which sickens me the most is "the superiority of our ideas and methods has already been shown in many recent disputes" where when? or were the rest of us invisible (oh yes we did not have the official SP photographer so probably were) but I see you have caught onto that one Patrique and bring your own
Rainbow coalition to fight for the members not a chance unfortunately not with the SP

by Sir Pellinore Gwayne-Cust - Masked Chainsaw Berserks Of The Apocalypse(Political Wing) Sat Jun 24, 2006 15:15

Let us understand what the SP mean by the knee-jerk insult of referring to anyone even mildly critical of their control freakery and pomposity as 'right wing bureaucrats'.'Right wing' means,in the context of Northern Ireland,that you are not one of the 83 go-fers in the Party.'Bureaucrat' means that you probably are one-certainly in Nipsa,the wealthiest union activists are Trots in well paid managerial positions.Indeed,I am hard pressed to think of one who is not.These people would'nt know a pick from a shovel.In fact,I cannot think of many horny-handed sons of toil in the Party-they are all white collar and middle class.The real working classes are too busy working for aliving to be bothered wihh them.Finally, I hope Mark had clearance from his political masters before speaking in a 'personal capacity'.

by Mark P - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Jun 26, 2006 13:44

I note that in between the bile, ranting and other gibberish of his last few posts my multi-aliased friend does not in fact dispute what I said in my brief contribution. The Socialist Party has caucuses in various unions, made up of our members only. We also participate in broader organisations like NIPSA Time For Change, CPSU Activist etc, alongside other people who want to see democratic and fighting trade unions. This is not a secret, it's something we are proud of.

Of course this irritates the right wing bureaucracy that controls most of the unions. Any challenge to their gravy train offends them. Even referring to these people, accurately, as right wing bureaucrats seems to occasionally get under their skin. Hence I suppose many of the comments in this thread. We will take it as a sign that we are doing our job properly and let the bureaucrats get on with smearing us anonymously on the internet if they really have nothing better to be doing.

by amanda allaway Mon Jun 26, 2006 18:28

who uses your full name so everyone knows exactly who you are?

by Tim Clarke - nipsa Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:20

ive been an active member of nipsa for around 25 years and nothing much has changed in that time regarding the antics of the extreme left .
These individuals would do well to remember that they are supposed to be representing their members,so there is absolutely no place for caucuses who conduct their business behind closed doors and pursue an extremist agenda.
The members want results -on pay inequality,on saving our jobs from privatisation,on securing our childrens'future by fighting education cuts.These are the issues that matter and the reason why people are in the union.
However,the SP, and SWP take advantage of a demoralised and disillusioned membership to selfishly promote their agenda.It's about time the members really woke up and told them in no uncertain terms that the totalitarian ideology they call socialism is dead and long overdue a decent burial.
Its also time that people stood up to the brainwashing and bullying tactics of the left (im sick of doing it on my own and getting no end of abuse as a result)and made it clear that they don't speak for everyone,that there are people of all political persuasions in nipsa who all have equal rights under the law,that there is no place for secret (or semi-secret)societies in a free trade union,that they should leave their capital P Politics at home and get on with representing their members(or risk losing many).
I' veno objection to anyone trying to persuade me that trotsky had some good ideas,although they would have a pretty hard job.However,they have no right to set up a caucus within our union to promote these ideas.They know rightly that they wouldnt get very far if most people knew what they were really up to,so they resort to deception and posing as democrats.
I suppose tney are every bit as "democratic "as the gang of political extremists who overthrew a democratically elected government in Russia in 1917 ,instigated a reign of terror and mass murder,and made the lives of working class people a misery for about 70 years.
Anyway,congratulations to all those who are doing their best to reclaim our union from the divisive influence of the left.Hopefully more will emerge from their closets until we can safely say that the union is totally in the hands of the members-i.e. a true democracy with no place for caucuses,reserved seats for interest groups or any of the left's techniques for gaining power at the expense of everyone else.

by ... Mon Jun 26, 2006 21:27

Who has reserved seats Tim?

by Tim Clarke - nipsa Mon Jun 26, 2006 22:08

I didn't say that nipsa had reserved seats for anyone.I was referring to the left wing tactic of gaining control of a union or organisation through various interest groups-the "rainbow coalition "idea whereby a network of sub-groups work together(co-ordinated by the party of course) to steer the organisation's policies in the direction they want.
That is more or less the SWP's way of doing things.The SP approach is rather less subtle,although they were dangerously close to winning the political fund vote ,and then the members would have been in real danger of losing control to an unrepresentative clique.

by patrique - nipsa Tue Jun 27, 2006 22:11

Tim, I honestly do not think it is your opposition to the left that earns you so many brickbats, to be polite about things. Enough said, as everyone knows why you are well known at conference. Your views may be your own, or your members, but I think these views are the cause of vitriol directed towards you.

Secondly, NIPSA has a membership of 43,000, and there appears to be two members of the SWP in there, one in Derry and one in Belfast, not in Branch 8 I hasten to add. Hardly enough to form a caucus.

As for a "rainbow coalition" the SWP, if they existed in NIPSA, and the SP would have a fit if they thought that someone believed that they supported a "rainbow coalition". There is little chance of that, which to me is the reason why we achieve little as a union, the left and right are always trying to undermine the other.

It was me Patrique, who suggested a "rainbow coalition". There was one in the Republic of Ireland, Fianna Gael, Labour and Democratic Left, all far removed from the SP or SWP. They were able to make a small difference in some areas, but would not be cheered by SWP or SP.

To blame everything on the left is a symptom of what I am railing against. The Right Wing are hardly blameless in trying to undermine the left, all for the sake of winning seats on CSGE, P and O, or General Council. Hardly worth winning unless we can come up with a few united policies.

Branch 8 voted for nearly all of the TFC candidates for CSGE, but we also voted for Amanda, Trevor and Michael Robinson. This would reflect our branch, mostly left wing but with 976 members we have more than a few right wingers, and our vote reflects that. I doubt if many branches follow suit, so please, no lectures on representing members.

Every political party in the world recruits members where and when they find them, and a Trade Union should be fertile ground. The SP nor anyone else should be condemned for that. I object if the party is then put before the union, but you Tim, are not objecting to practice, but rather the party in itself. Everyone is entitled to belong to a party if they so wish.

And to make matters worse, you then mention the SWP who have no influence in NIPSA. Therefore Tim, attitudes like yours are the type I am complaining about, the old "we are right, and they are wrong attitude". I want the union to work as one for the members, what do you want?

by Tim Clarke - nipsa Wed Jun 28, 2006 01:42

What nipsa needs now more than ever is a united,proactive membership.
Like yourself Patrique I would like to see a strong union with an active membership ,fully aware of the impending threats to their jobs and prepared to take whatever action is necessary to save them.
However,the reality at the coal face is somewhat different.Members are ,rightly or wrongly,not totally convinced that their union is doing a very good job defending their interests,and it's going to take a lot of hard work to convince them otherwise.
The last thing we need when faced with so many demoralised members is a tiny extremist sect trying to take over the union by stealth.
As I said before I don't care what anyone's personal political views are.What I do care about is how we can unite people around the most important issues i.e pay,privatisation and the government's underfunding of,and lack of commitment to,high quality public services.
This will not happen unless we can motivate people to get involved-how many Branches weren't even represented at conference,I wonder?I have no criticism of your Branch Patrique,in fact it is one of the best organised judging by your delegates' performance ,but we have to be realistic and consider why there is so much alienation.
It isn't just my branch-a lot of people are just totally turned off by the politics,particularly the whole tfc thing.They want to be represented by people who are prepared to go straight in there and fight water privatisationi,workplace2010 etc with no ulterior motive or hidden agenda.
If we can all do that and leave our personal politics at home we just might succeed in building a stronger union.If we aren't mature enough to focus on what really matters and discard superfluous issues that divide us I reckon the future for nipsa looks very bleak indeed.
Without an active membership who care enough to use their votes,turn up at meetings etc,a union is pretty much useless.If we lose on Water and Workplace2010,we might as well call it a day for nipsa.We really don't have that much time and we need to get into a situation where members have confidence in their union and are willing to stand together to protect their jobs and public services.
As far as the left is concerned,what they have to do is grow up and realise that theyre not ever going to make diehard socialists of the vast majority of members,certainly not by stealth or "politically correct "brainwashing.There can only be one nipsa.no caucuses or politically motivated insider groups.

by Patrique - nipsa Sat Jul 01, 2006 00:09

Ending a well argued piece by telling the left to "grow up" nullifies all that went before. All the bits about working together and such are completely ignored with the last sentence.

Now I am never going to win a popularity poll in NIPSA, but I can work with people if I believe they are genuine, and we have many genuine people in the union. I may not agree with many on the right, but if they are genuine, I can respect that.

The reason we have an active branch is because our members are at the coal face, working hard all day, achieving little, and poorly paid. It often requires union inyervention to get a day's leave, so we have plenty to do. That gives the reps a high profile, and therefore gives the union a high profile. We had 10 reps at conference, and we have as many more back in the branch who would do themselves proud at conference. The staff have a cause, so we are active.

Now there are a number of causes out there for all of the union. Pay, water charges, workplace 2010, pensions ( Michael had me convinced that the Government would not renege, I felt so stupid for suggesting that they would) education and health cuts, agenda for change, and the CSA being sold off to all takers. Now is the time all members to get active. All we need is a bit of unity and clear leadership.

Telling people to grow up will not achieve that.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Mon Aug 14, 2006 23:20

Is this a goner now?

Big Brother

by Ray Krebbs - South Fork Concerned Residents' Association Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:55

Yep.Shoah as hell looks like it,bwoy.

by vote counter Tue Sep 26, 2006 14:31

looks like PatReek did not do so well in the elections at conference, goes to show the support him and his branch get, i noticed none from brach 8 got elected to CSGE. with PatReek topping the polls, consider putting less candidates up next time.

maybe there is a conspircy against branch 8, the old saying springs to mind, those that cast the vote decide nothing those that count the vote decide everything........

by Patrique - nipsa Tue Sep 26, 2006 23:25

Acting on advice from people who had previously been elected, we did limit the number of candidates this year. Branch 8 put forward 4 candidates, this from a Branch who could field about 50 candidates who could grace CSGE.

I thank you for commenting on my personal vote. For someone who is allegedly unelectable, and not too bothered because frankly being a rep in Branch 8 doesn't allow one the luxury of taking time off for CSGE, I did amazingly well.

The bit about vote counters et al, is a bit on the esoteric side for me.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Thu Sep 28, 2006 23:53

I couldn't give a flying fiddlers about elections. They are not representatve of your Trade Union ability - you only have to look at some of the people who get elected to the General Council to understand that - especially this year.

Frankly, if there were a few more like Patrique on the GC it might actually do something constructive. While I don't agree with Branch 8 on a number of issues there's little doubt that they are an active Branch and politically aware - if a little naive in the pissing people off stakes.

Big Brother

PS Nice to see some replies again - I posted some a while back but they mysteriously disappeared.

by Patrique - nipsa Sat Sep 30, 2006 00:17

Not a great believer in elections either, if the body has no clout.

Unfortunately however I must disagree with you on one issue. Unfortunately, again, we seem to be masters at pissing people off, although we are working on it.

by Thor Wed Oct 18, 2006 00:33

A wee birdie told me “vote counter” got caught smoking outside Great Northern Tower, how are you going to “Fiddle” your way out of that one?
I’ll represent you if you like?
I don’t think general council will get you out of this one.

The Hammer has fallen.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Thu Oct 19, 2006 22:46

The more I attend Harkin House the more it seems NIPSA is a ruderless ship heading for the rocks. The correspondance between Harkin House and Branches seems to be becoming less and less despite the fact there is more than ever a threat to our members (Workplace 2010, Review of Public Administration, Agenda for Change) and there is practically no consultation with Branches about how full time officials are conducting business in crucial meetings.

To get back on topic, the question of who runs the Union - well at this moment nobody seems to be. What a pity we cannot get the election of officials onto the conference agenda. Whilst I admit that the workload is massive, maybe it is time for change all round at Harkin House - too much dead wood and chancers there too long.

The election of officials should be the main motion at next years conference (although I hope Branch 5 don't submit it as it will be in category X - lol)

Big Brother

by Old Tom Merry - Old Tom Merry's Almanac of 500 Marvellous Jests Sat Oct 21, 2006 17:17

Q:How do you know when a Trot's ears are burning? A:You've phoned them when they're ironing.Heh,heh,heh!Was that no' a good yin?There's life in the old dog yet!Only sleggin'!

by stroppy Sat Oct 21, 2006 23:37

I would agree with Big Brother that there should be much better communications between NIPSA HQ and Branches on negotiations being undertaken on behalf of members.
I would also agree that change would be beneficial but there I part company with BB. The necessary change is a restructuring of posts in Harkin House to deliver a more efficient and transparent service to members. BB is'nt keeping up with events if he thinks election of officials is the answer to our problems.
Election of officials is a cherished dream of the Socialist Party for some reason. This is somewhat strange when you think of it because the SP members elected to the General Council and CSGEx Committee have refused to sit on the committees negotiating on issues like Workplace 2010.
A leading advocate of electing officials has declared in his party newspaper the socialist Voice that the
'most important issue' for them this year is to fight the right wing in NIPSA.. That might explain why they are too busy to square up to management on Central Whitley committees.
I fear the 'Voice' of Big Brother will not be heeded at Conference and a motion on electing officials will fall yet again.
I for one believe that electing officials who are publicly committed to following the party programme of a micro political grouping who cannot get a councillor elected is not in the interests of members . The HQ Officials may have faults but they have'nt hidden from Cental Whitley negotiating committees.

by Brother Justin - Latter Day Evangelical Satanists Sun Oct 22, 2006 15:38

Strange indeed is the fetish of self-styled 'socialists' for transparently right wing policies such as the election of union officials.The Thatcher government brought this in as one of a dozen odd pieces of union bashing legislation(for General Secretaries only-even the most right wing Tory administration in living memory did not advocate this for others,unlike some of the crazed loons in our own ranks),and New Labour shamefully have kept many of these on the statute books.Unsurprisingly such measures were not proposed for the business chums of governments,such as CEOs.In any election,either the best,most experienced and most knowledgable candidate wins,which would normally happen in an interview situation anyway(in which case the union merely wastes thousands of pounds that could have been used to employ someone)or somebody less deserving,less capable or not even meeting the criteria for the job gets it and cannot do it.Either way,the unions are clobbered big-time,which is what the legislation intended and why the ordinary members on the ground remain overwhelmingly opposed to such 'beauty contests' where any union basher or party political puppet can waste the union's time and money.The Thatcherites who support this would be better employed getting involved in the hard work of the Whitley and other committees where they might eventually learn enough some day to compete for HQ jobs at alevel they can handle(eg EO, or with enough years of experience and hard grind,HEO).If they were to suggest such nonsense for any of the members they purport to represent,as opposed to employees,they would of course be taken away and sectioned(or lynched).

by Scratch Thu Nov 02, 2006 20:55

I have just been told about this site and reading this crap from the start makes me want to be sick. I will tell you who runs the union, unfortunately it is political parties like the Socialist Party and the Socialist workers Party. What happened to neutrality, there is even word on the grapevine that Eamon McCann is speaking at one Branchs AGM this year. This gobsheen is a member of a party (the SWP) which in the 70's and 80's openly supported the IRA. The IRA were in turn the very people who made all Civil Servants legitimate targets regardless of religion (and I am a working class catholic before I get accusations of sectarianism). I remember getting the security letter telling me to vary my route to work and also not to sit too close to the window in my house. I took great offence to my family being put in danger simply because I earned shit wages working for the bloody government and now some dick who supported the threatening of Civil servants lives is going to be addressing who, yes you guessed it, civil servants at a Public Service union meeting. Whoever thought of that one must be completely insane or just hoping to get an interview in the Telegraph. I hope there are people old enough to remember this because this Union needs to get rid of people who constantly politicise everything. The SP and the SWP members and supporters should keep their politics at home as the grass roots members do not need this sort of crap. I have been in the Civil Service and NIPSA for over 25 years and have seen the gradual disintegration of its powers, to the point where we have a load of eejits arguing on a website about nothing but internal politics and beaurocracy.

Its time you sorted yourselves out, start by looking up trade unionism in the dictionary and then after you have all found out what it means take a good hard look at yourselves. And if any real working class members read this site, do not vote for any political factions although judging by this pile of crap before me that might be hard to find.

by Big Brother - NIPSA Sat Nov 04, 2006 01:00

Scratch - your post bewilders me.

Firstly, if it annoys you that us idiots post here - piss off and don't read us then, we won't be lost without you.

Secondly, you're a working class catholic - oh yea right mate. I know plenty of Civil Servants from Andytown who have worked for years for the Government and never received any threats.

Thirdly, you moan whinge and complain about people politicising the union but you've posted one of the most political posts here.

Fourthly, there are people I fundamentally disagree with on a number of issues - but I would never say to them to go and look up "trade union" in the dictionary because the important thing for me is that they are contributing and active. That is a pathetic comment.

Fithly, why do you mention SWP and SP? Do they frighten you, and is there no other little faction within Nipsa with mainstream leanings a la Reclaim the Union

Sixthly, I'm sure the Social Party and Social Workers Party would be delighted to hear they run Nipsa, because nobody has told them yet.

I do agree on one thing - we are a pack of eejits - even Patrique woudl agree with me about that.

Big Brother

by stroppy Sat Nov 04, 2006 01:55

I'm with BB on this one. I don't remember the security letter but I suspect it was a general advice note to Civil Servants and not a direct threat to the Scratch family. Looks like Scratch spent a few decades staying away from the windows for nothing . If you are still hiding in the jungle come out because the war is over.
Not sure what powers NIPSA had years ago that are gone but years of Thatcherite/Blairite anti- Trade Union legislation might have something to do with the diminished powers of all Trade Unions .
I have no love of the SP, especially the less than dynamic svengali Peter Hardon, the SWP have their flaws and RYU are not a political party but I suspect they all have working class members. When someone talks about the 'real working class ' I usually find they are some self absorbed, middle class, failed revolutionary who does'nt need to buy vouchers every week to pay for the kids Christmas presents. So come on Scratch do us all a favour and define what a real working class person is so we can aspire to join your utopian but presumably windowless paradise.

by patrique - nipsa Sat Nov 04, 2006 15:35

Scratch, amazing how many people blunder on to this site, offering the excuse "somebody just told me about it". I am sure I have heard that recently somewhere else.

As for guest speakers, the invited speaker is the only journalist to constantly support the Civil Service pay claim, oppose privatisation of public services, and has even supported the workers in the much maligned CSA. He also speaks at a number of NIPSA events.

He is also a harsh critic of paramilitaries, opposed to water charges, and a man who has spent years trying to create a better society for the benefit of all.

He is a member of the SWP. So what? The other candidate who I considered inviting is a member of the DUP, because they are the only party to date to have met us to discuss the future of the CSA. In short, we should embrace those who support us, rather than pursuing a political course, just as Mr Scratch is doing. People such as Scratch, who put politics above trade unionism, are the type of people that have held back the union for years. Scratch has already said that. Obviously there are no mirrors in his/her house.

One other disturbing feature here. I have no idea who is the guest speaker at any other branch AGM, how come a "blunderer" knows who our invited speaker is? Are we closely monitored, or is it simply a case of the green eyed monster?

by Trade unionist Mon Nov 06, 2006 14:10

Scratch. Look up trade unionist in the dictionary and you may well find Eamon McCann's name. He is often the first to be invited to speak at any progressive rally or protest. All because he has never been afraid to be identified with trade unionists in struggle. How many high profile people do this? Name a few and we'll see whether they have any politics because I think you'll find that everyone has a political opinion. Personally therefore I would rather have a speaker with a well known political opinion in favour of working class advancement than one who doesn't but goes out of their way to please everyone without arguing for one thing over the other. Eamon's opinion is consistent and earnest and whether you like it or not a lot of civil servants including myself were glad of his unwavering support during the 2004/5 pay dispute.

At the end of the day as they say qui bono? Who will benefit from McCann's appearance, the union by a long shot I'd say. The losers will be New Labour agenda in the person of Peter Hain and the management who will sell the workers out for a better job.

Which side are you on?

by The Wing of Nut - nipsa Mon Nov 06, 2006 18:50

TO pick up on a few points that you have made Scratch:

Firstly, in terms of security matters, I have lived under fear of attack for the first 17 years of my life, so whilst I respect your point of view, please do not look for a sympathy vote because you're not the only one. I've had to change my walking routes home, I've had to check my family's cars and sit far away from the window. That experience changes people. This generates an automatic feeling of mistrust.

And In case I am in receipt of sectarian comments, I am a working class protestant who originally lived in "bandit country" in the south west of Northern Ireland for 25 of my 29 years.

Secondly, I have met Eamonn McCann on a number of occasions and have found him to be polite, articulate, mannerly and extremely knowledgeable when it comes to trade union issues. Now regardless of his past, whether it be shadowy or not, It is his stance now that should be the main factor we look at. Let us remember he was the only journo to support Civil Servants during the last few years. Now, I'll be honest , I do disagree with some of Eamonn's opinions on a number of matters, but I do respect him regardless of his past.

I would also suggest that you read a little more into the various NIPSA posts on this good website, for they contain more than just "eejits talking about nothing but internal politics and bureaucracy". I know I am an eejit , and I know that can be independently confirmed.

Funnily enough, since I am an active member of nipsa, I had a look at the term "trade unionist" and I'm happy to say that I am one. Even my mirror told me that! Otherwise I would not have joined my branch committee. I think even anybody with half a brain and an ounce of common sense can figure that one out! Whilst my point of view is maybe a little askew from others, I tend to be a little more independent and tend to look at both sides of an argument before I decide where I stand on a particular issue.

So in closing I personally thank you Scratchy for your comments, they were very helpful for me. It made me realise how much common sense I have and the distinct lack of common sense which your comments contain, I see that I am a reasonably able trade unionist whereas you would be happy to watch from the sidelines and complain after all has been done that nothing was done.

Now if you don't mind, I have some useful "trade unionist" work to do.

by Scratching my head Thu Nov 09, 2006 13:53

Scratch
"this Union needs to get rid of people who constantly politicise everything."

I agree. Lets start with getting rid of Peter Hain, he keeps politicising water charges, rates and civil service reforms by threatening to go ahead with the lot unless local politicians get back into the Assembly. Then maybe we should get rid of Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister in waiting is determined to freeze public sector wages, yet he said in the Commons on the eve of the invasion of Iraq that the invasion would have all the financial backing it would require. A blank cheque for war a crap cheque for wages.

I think you'll find that the problem isn't politics its political ideology, and I'd have McCann's or any left wingers before New Labour's any day. Or are you suggesting that in the face of the threat posed by New Labour that our union zips it rather than get accused of politicing? You may be in a minority if thats the case.

The 'factions' within the union argue over the strategy and tactics which the union should deploy in order to defend member's interests. This might well be frustrating at times but it doesn't give you the right to accuse those involved of not being trade unionists, especially as those involved in the various 'factions' are consistently those most involved in the 'bread and butter', non-political, everyday tasks of representing members in the workplace.

Save your venom for the real enemies of the working class.

by MB - Nipsa Fri Dec 01, 2006 17:01

Scratch - stop being a bloody drama queen. On the subject of Eamonn McCann - why not have him at a branch meeting? If nothing else he's a damn sight more interesting to listen to than a suit from nipsa telling us they intend to write a strongly worded letter of protest to the minister. I heard him speak at the branch meeting yesterday and he spoke about water charges among other things. Pay was also discussed Scratch, before you become horrified on behalf of the branch 8 members who were subjected to an outrageous outpouring of political indoctrination by this SWP monster! Incidentally he took to the stand with a prominent SP member, just in case you want to add weight to your other nonsense theory about the hostile takeover bid by certain political factions. Anyway one thing did strike me - we can fight for a pay increase and concentrate all our efforts as a trade union on little else if we wish. If we win it, well and good - but the very same government that will put it in one hand, will take it straight out of the other by way of water charges. We'll be no better off and much worse when the private company that the government have waiting in the wings, come for even more. That's why the politics of working class people should never be left out of the picture.

by Big Brother - Nipsa Mon Aug 13, 2007 21:57

Looks like things are a dead duck.

Big Brother