# Unemployment Movement



## terratech (Jul 8, 2009)

*Demands for the Unemployment Movement*


Here Again! Another recession, another round to blame and shame the unemployed..... While green shoots appear and disappear just as quick, we all know the crass and inevitable lines the newspapers are going to come out with to vilify the unemployed and hot on their heels will be the political bureaucrats ready to roll out the training scheme and the whip of the so called public opinion remonstrating how `They` are being undermined by the unemployed`s income.

This incredulous and insane reaction in the mist of this `Depression` is akin to a head in the sand as day after day we here of layoffs and redundancies, shorting working hours and work holidays; all based on the idea that `One Day` all will be put to right. 

Here we cannot wait for that Day! And we will not wait for another 25 years for the recovery while having our dignity stripped from us as the welfare regime pummels our families into poverty. Here there can be no politics as the basic demands we make are First and Foremost the;

Abolition of the signing on regime

Abolition of all mandatory schemes

Abolition of present welfare reforms

These objectives form only the basis of a longer and heated discourse on the future of work but we are not here for that. Our immediate resolve must be to get the ball rolling without interference from the Left or Right arguing the merits of work when there’s an immediate need to focus on the needs of the unemployed.

Our power will come from our autonomy of action – self-organised the unemployed can just be as powerful as the trade union as the base for action bars none from time but with always the need to improve our lot we have the ability to hold those that infer we are lazy, are dross and cannot get out of bed as inept slaves to the real power of a determined thrust of a movement that can bring this country to a standstill.

As recent demonstrators sloganised that it is  "HELL INSIDE, HELL OUTSIDE", describing the relationship between work and unemployment only goes to show the real need to organise Now! and not when Hell is visited upon us. Anger is more productive than despair, as much as rebellion is now our only course of action when the powerful do not listen.

Join us at the `Unemployment Movements` social network at raw-rap.com and organise, plan and challenge all for a future with dignity.


----------



## treelover (Jul 8, 2009)

positive stuff, but in general wasting your time trying to get most of the UK left involved, historically since the late 80's they have been very poor on all this, just look at how they haven't challenged the open goal which is New Deal.


an indication , watch how mnay views a G20/G8 or BNP thread gest and then look at yours...


----------



## Urbanblues (Jul 9, 2009)

treelover said:


> positive stuff, but in general wasting your time trying to get most of the UK left involved, historically since the late 80's they have been very poor on all this, just look at how they haven't challenged the open goal which is New Deal.
> 
> 
> an indication , watch how mnay views a G20/G8 or BNP thread gest and then look at yours...



Depressingly true!


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

Good idea, but I can't get there before 11


----------



## moon23 (Jul 9, 2009)

I wish you the best of luck and im optimistic people will come to see the importance of these struggles in due course


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

> Good idea, but I can't get there before 11
> Reply With Quote



Ha, ha, not....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Site doesn't seem to work. Is it just me?


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

Blimey, that is one cool site, though don't get the title


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ok. serious reply. it's fucking stupid because you can't demand anything because you don't have any power

i agree that the way britain deals with unemployment is shitty, . i think some sort of movement to provide networks for people who can't work for whatever reason and are still being fucked over with benefits to help each other getting back into work or not struggling quite so much would be a good idea. 

but demanding politicians to be fair to unemployed people?

what world are you living in?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2009)

_"Abolish the signing on regime"_ - you might as well argue against the sun rising tbf.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

Surely no more bizarre than most of the Far Lefts demands, even the 'transitional ones'


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2009)

i'd say that trying to start a campaign to implement changes that is effectively doomed from the start is pointless - it's worthwhile trying to agitate against the pernicious welfare reforms that are currently passing through parliament but to state that you want to abolish signing on without setting out any credible alternative for how you deal with the issue of unemployed workers is plain daft - should we go back to the workhouse model instead, or parish poor laws?


----------



## Spion (Jul 9, 2009)

Me and a few others tried to set up and unemployed org in the late 80s. We were leafletting locally to try and recruit while talking to some others nationally who were doing the same. The main thrust of it was similar to the demands of the OP.

It seems to me there are some major obstacles to organising the unemployed:

They are not gathered in one place as workers are. You can convince people temporarily then they go home and are isolated again.
They have no power other than those of peasants/rioters such as demonstrating/blocking streets.

That's not to say you shouldn't try it. It's just I think that the main focus of anyone who wants change should make things easy on themselves by targetting workers concentrated in workplaces who have the power to shut down economic life.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

Just what i expected, classic 'workerist' ideology; never mind millions of people not in work, carers, single parents, disabled people, etc. The Campaign Against The Welfare Reform Bill run largely by disabled people was quite effective, it just didn't get the support from those it should have expected it from, the same could be said for the Remploy workers. There is a long tradition of seeing the unemployed, etc as 'unorganisable' and in many cases as the 'lumpen'


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

stop asking the government to do it for you

there are unemployed people who need childcare, transport, accomodation etc and unemployed people who don't need it but are unable to get a normal job and support themselves but probably could help with childcare, transport etc

to be honest i have quite a bit of contempt with left wing movements spending time and effort organising marches to tell parliment etc that they aren't happy with this or that policy, like they didn't realise that making a policy would upset people....


----------



## Spion (Jul 9, 2009)

treelover said:


> Just what i expected, classic 'workerist' ideology; never mind millions of people not in work, carers, single parents, disabled people, etc.


I didn't say 'never mind' you disingenuous twat. I said it was something that should be done but that it was difficult and presents many problems compared to organising the employed (which is difficult enough).

The only time this type of thing has got anywhere in the UK is in the 30s, against a background of much better labour organisation and with the sponsorship of a major party (the CP)

What do you sugges then?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2009)

you're wrong spion, the unions used to fund unemployed workers centres ~20-30 years ago but they seem to have lost interest recently.


----------



## Spion (Jul 9, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> you're wrong spion, the unions used to fund unemployed workers centres ~20-30 years ago but they seem to have lost interest recently.


wrong about what exactly?

There's quite a difference between those UWCs and organising the unemployed as I think the OP means it, and the NUWM did in the 30s.

I used to spend a LOT of time at my local UWC in the late 80s, btw, so I know what that was all about


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2009)

I'd suggest a quick reading of the brief history of the attempts to organise against the JSA would be useful at this point.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

They were a disaster, imo, with splits between militant and others


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2009)

Yes, but illustrates the unavoidable difficululties of organizing in this terrain. the unemployed as mentioned have little power or leverage to use as Spion mentioned, and as you mentioned the Left have different interests. The role of the CPSA left in the JSA movements illustrates this. 

If the unemployed do this themselves then fine, but its pointless moaning at the left for not doing it.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

i suggest reading some boring books that are hard to get ahold of


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> i suggest reading some boring books that are hard to get ahold of



Usually a good idea.


----------



## Rod Sleeves (Jul 9, 2009)

chilango said:


> Yes, but illustrates the unavoidable difficululties of organizing in this terrain. the unemployed as mentioned have little power or leverage to use as Spion mentioned



I think that the potential power of the unemployed is greatly under estimated, if we look at the piquetero movement of Argentina for example we can see practical examples of the sort of disruption to economic life that well organised and determined people can make - despite not being in work.

Anyone can picket, they just need a strong self confident and well organised movement, which currently they don't have - but this looks like a step in the right direction.

I agree it's pointless to look to the left for answers, they can't organise themselves at the moment.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> ok. serious reply. it's fucking stupid because you can't demand anything because you don't have any power
> 
> i agree that the way britain deals with unemployment is shitty, . i think some sort of movement to provide networks for people who can't work for whatever reason and are still being fucked over with benefits to help each other getting back into work or not struggling quite so much would be a good idea.
> 
> ...



One where MPs might shit their breeks if theres a constant gathering of 100 people plus outside the JC+, and then outside their constituency surgeries? 

The truth is that a well-organised grass-roots movement can do a lot, but to do so it has to stick to it's guns and it's original plans, not get drawn into other issues, and it has to fuck off any "left" organisation that tries to take it over for their own purposes.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

hear, hear


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _"Abolish the signing on regime"_ - you might as well argue against the sun rising tbf.



Well, I can see why the signing on regime would be seen as a line the government wouldn't want to cross, more because of it's symbolic effect. They'd be loath to get rid of something that to them symbolises the abject disgustingness of the unemployed worker.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

Isn't 'signing on' common even in nominally Social Democratic countries like Sweden where historically the unemployed, etc were (at least till recently) treated fairly?


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

it's weird when you watch proper middle class people getting stuff done. it's never for something this important, like if you look at a posh village where they try to build a big supermarket or a club or something and suddenly all these very quiet supposedly apolitical people will organise in a week or two, have meetings, write letters, campaign etc

over stuff that is ultimately only going to only be a minor annoyance in their lives

something really important like this and you get all this rhetoric about *demanding* this and that and *creating a movemen* and nothing usually gets done cos you already get the kudos for sticking up for yourself etc so the result doesn't matter so much. if you are determined to try and change things through parliment i think you would do well to be middle class about it since the middle class own it


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

well, the people who historically have campaigned against poverty, like the churches, now see asylum seekers and migrants as the priority.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> One where MPs might shit their breeks if theres a constant gathering of 100 people plus outside the JC+, and then outside their constituency surgeries?
> 
> The truth is that a well-organised grass-roots movement can do a lot, but to do so it has to stick to it's guns and it's original plans, not get drawn into other issues, and it has to fuck off any "left" organisation that tries to take it over for their own purposes.



totlly agree with this

but any worthy cause draws parasitical politico organisations like flies to shit and everyone loses interest cos it turns into dodgy paper sellers turning up every day and alienating everyone

i think that people need to stand up to the left as well as the right tbh (i mean the institutions and organisations. the ideas are something else entirely imo)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Capital is more dependent on its distribution networks today than ever before - the transport networks are chains that can easily be severed if people are serious and committed about it. As capital expands into the social factory so more and more places become modern day equivalenets of the old strategically important workshops that could could block the whole factories running. There are now more opportunities outside of the formal work setting than ever before.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> stop asking the government to do it for you
> 
> there are unemployed people who need childcare, transport, accomodation etc and unemployed people who don't need it but are unable to get a normal job and support themselves but probably could help with childcare, transport etc


A big problem (at least as I see it) is that much of the childcare, for example, has been "professionalised". It used to be (certainly when I was a kid, and into the 80s) that you used to have several local "child-minders" who did it at an affordable rate, even though they didn't have NVQs and the like. Nowadays, it's seen as a profession and the cost is (unless you're on a "good" wage) prohibitive. If you're looking at £200-500 per month just on childcare costs, then even with what assistance the government offers, you're going to have to be taking home a nice bit of _gelt_ to afford to actually live after paying for childcare.


> to be honest i have quite a bit of contempt with left wing movements spending time and effort organising marches to tell parliment etc that they aren't happy with this or that policy, like they didn't realise that making a policy would upset people....



Yeah, but marches aren't just about "telling parliament", they're about publicising an issue or set of issues more widely through the accompanying press coverage.


----------



## Spion (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Capital is more dependent on its distribution networks today than ever before - the transport networks are chains that can easily be severed if people are serious and committed about it. As capital expands into the social factory so more and more places become modern day equivalenets of the old strategically important workshops that could could block the whole factories running.


It's true. 

It has a long precedent as a tactic. I can think of a few examples where peasants blocked roads and railways in struggles against the British empire. You can't exactly go on strike if you're a farmer.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

treelover said:


> well, the people who historically have campaigned against poverty, like the churches, now see asylum seekers and migrants as the priority.



it's working class areas where the BNP etc are making headway

it's part of this whole 'classless society' thing. the idea is to make society classless by just getting rid of the class who don't enjoy it from society. and low and behold the centre right achieve that and the anti society party does really well in the places where there are lots of people who don't feel like part of society....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> I didn't say 'never mind' you disingenuous twat. I said it was something that should be done but that it was difficult and presents many problems compared to organising the employed (which is difficult enough).
> 
> The only time this type of thing has got anywhere in the UK is in the 30s, against a background of much better labour organisation and with the sponsorship of a major party (the CP)
> 
> What do you sugges then?



Me, I'd "suggest" not aiming for the sky until you've secured your home turf. Local "interest groups" basing their actions and demands on local conditions. What pertains re: unemployment in Tyneside may not be the same as in Merseyside, Truro or the South Coast. Deal with local issues, perhaps federate with other groups nationally, but *don't* get bogged down in "sticking it to the government" until you've put your message across locally. Give your local community reasons to trust and or respect you for working with your community for everyone's good, and some of them will stick with you when you push your message nationally, whether they're unemployed themselves, or not.
Just trying to develop a national movement can't really work at present, because there are too many interested parties waiting to jump on any bandwagon that might bolster their membership.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> It's true.
> 
> It has a long precedent as a tactic. I can think of a few examples where peasants blocked roads and railways in struggles against the British empire. You can't exactly go on strike if you're a farmer.



Problem is, the theoretical possibility doesn't automatically translate into reality. I found during work with the unemployed that the main obstacle is that those who aren't _already_ (for want of a better word) politicos just want to keep their head down and sort their own situation out - being unemployed sort of forces a default atomisation on you, something which is then amplified through job competition. I would imagine that would be a real obstacle today in somewhere like say the west midlands where you've got skilled workers now competing with each for limited work.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

treelover said:


> hear, hear


 
You accuse the left of not getting involved in these issues (a cursory glance at history would prove you wrong on that) and then you cheer at suggestions to keep them out?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

chilango said:


> I'd suggest a quick reading of the brief history of the attempts to organise against the JSA would be useful at this point.



If only to depress yourself.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Capital is more dependent on its distribution networks today than ever before - the transport networks are chains that can easily be severed if people are serious and committed about it. As capital expands into the social factory so more and more places become modern day equivalenets of the old strategically important workshops that could could block the whole factories running. There are now more opportunities outside of the formal work setting than ever before



why ask parliment for a benefits system? it isn't in their interests no matter what happens imo

it's never going to work to try and 'outmuscle' westminister/the city etc the goal should not be to try and intimidate them into changing their benefits system it should be trying to get into a position where noone is reliant on it. 

the old fashioned thing of 'bringing the country to a standstill' is bollocks. who wants that to happen?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

Rod Sleeves said:


> I think that the potential power of the unemployed is greatly under estimated, if we look at the piquetero movement of Argentina for example we can see practical examples of the sort of disruption to economic life that well organised and determined people can make - despite not being in work.
> 
> Anyone can picket, they just need a strong self confident and well organised movement, which currently they don't have - but this looks like a step in the right direction.


The problem being that (IMHO anyway) the drive to self-organisation has been "educated" out of people, who've been brainwashed to believe that any political organising outwith the major parties is "wrong" or "bad", and of course the media don't help with the way they represent legitimate protest, either.


> I agree it's pointless to look to the left for answers, they can't organise themselves at the moment.


Nor even the proverbial piss-up in a brewery, I sometimes think.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

People might not realise you had to sign on twice a week thirty years ago for a cash payment of around £5.00. Work camps were also in place for the long term unemployed. A friend was sent to one - he escaped.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

treelover said:


> Isn't 'signing on' common even in nominally Social Democratic countries like Sweden where historically the unemployed, etc were (at least till recently) treated fairly?



Signing on *is* common, but the way it's handled differes greatly. I don't know about now, but it used to be in Germany that you didn't go to the Job Centre-equivalent or DWP office-equivalent to sign on, you went to your local municipal headquarters, so you were just one person among hundreds going there for what could have been hundreds of different reasons, so the stigma was massively lessened.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Work camps in 1979 eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Unemployment benefit is ran by the unions in scandanavian countries i think.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> A big problem (at least as I see it) is that much of the childcare, for example, has been "professionalised". It used to be (certainly when I was a kid, and into the 80s) that you used to have several local "child-minders" who did it at an affordable rate, even though they didn't have NVQs and the like. Nowadays, it's seen as a profession and the cost is (unless you're on a "good" wage) prohibitive. If you're looking at £200-500 per month just on childcare costs, then even with what assistance the government offers, you're going to have to be taking home a nice bit of _gelt_ to afford to actually live after paying for childcare.



well people still mostly use family/friends networks in my (limited) experience. there is no reason that it shouldn't just be paying someone you know and trust a few quids to look after your kids when you go out. specially now we have the internet, having a network of people who can and will do that shouldn't be a problem at all

specially if you managed to get all the single mums together in any area and take it in turns to babysit so that it wasn't prohibitive. they would have experience with kids etc. I know it isn't that simple, there would be loads of details, but the way it is now i bet there are loads of single mums stuck at home who are perfectly capable of looking after an extra few younguns but just don't have contact with other capable single mums who could do it just as well and remove that restriction...


[quote[Yeah, but marches aren't just about "telling parliament", they're about publicising an issue or set of issues more widely through the accompanying press coverage.[/QUOTE]

but you are still relying on the press. the G20 and Tamil protests in london in april was a great example of how that works. G20 was a fairly small and peaceful protest compared to the tamil protest but it got 10 times more coverage because of the power structures


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> it's weird when you watch proper middle class people getting stuff done. it's never for something this important, like if you look at a posh village where they try to build a big supermarket or a club or something and suddenly all these very quiet supposedly apolitical people will organise in a week or two, have meetings, write letters, campaign etc
> 
> over stuff that is ultimately only going to only be a minor annoyance in their lives
> 
> something really important like this and you get all this rhetoric about *demanding* this and that and *creating a movemen* and nothing usually gets done cos you already get the kudos for sticking up for yourself etc so the result doesn't matter so much. if you are determined to try and change things through parliment i think you would do well to be middle class about it since the middle class own it



Thing is, you *have* to create a movement from the ground up if you want to have any hope of succeeding. Unfortunately, doing so leaves you very much open to the standard "divide and rule" tactics that the boss class are so fond of.
I don't know whether I'm misremembering (if so, I'm sure Butch can set me straight), but I'm sure that a couple of the Angry Brigade were involved with organising the unemployed in the early 70s, and had the standard "we're stopping your dole" tactic used on them.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nor even the proverbial piss-up in a brewery, I sometimes think.



this is my area


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> it's working class areas where the BNP etc are making headway


Except that it isn't, it's actually the "lower middle class" areas populated by the "aspirational" ex-working class who want to leave behind any reminders of their former social "position" where the BNP are making headway. After all, the BNP, if (a very big "if", granted) they got in power, could erase whole swathes of embarrassing reminders for such aspirational people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

MC5 said:


> You accuse the left of not getting involved in these issues (a cursory glance at history would prove you wrong on that) and then you cheer at suggestions to keep them out?



I'm not saying "exclude them", I'm saying "don't allow them to take control of a movement that belongs to the whole community".
Bit of a difference.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Signing on *is* common, but the way it's handled differes greatly. I don't know about now, but it used to be in Germany that you didn't go to the Job Centre-equivalent or DWP office-equivalent to sign on, you went to your local municipal headquarters, so you were just one person among hundreds going there for what could have been hundreds of different reasons, so the stigma was massively lessened.


I'm pretty sure it's a similar system in some Scandanavian countries, with Unions being much more involved in helping unemployed workers back into employment and much less of a profit incentive for doing so (although this may be changing as we speak).


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, you *have* to create a movement from the ground up if you want to have any hope of succeeding. Unfortunately, doing so leaves you very much open to the standard "divide and rule" tactics that the boss class are so fond of.
> I don't know whether I'm misremembering (if so, I'm sure Butch can set me straight), but I'm sure that a couple of the Angry Brigade were involved with organising the unemployed in the early 70s, and had the standard "we're stopping your dole" tactic used on them.



no you're missing my point tho

the left is always_ creating movements_ it's really childish

there is always this rhetoric of starting a revolution and so on. a couple of my friends in newcastle do fucking shitloads of community work, just general shit, not changing the world, just doing stuff for free cos it's their day off and they don't want to spend it all day on the internet  

it's mostly boring and 'apolitical' stuff like picking up rubbish or painting walls but we've all been learning about the mistakes of anarchist and communist movements in the 20th century for years and years and maybe we could come up with better arguments for pretty much any action, but they actually painted some walls


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that it isn't, it's actually the "lower middle class" areas populated by the "aspirational" ex-working class who want to leave behind any reminders of their former social "position" where the BNP are making headway. After all, the BNP, if (a very big "if", granted) they got in power, could erase whole swathes of embarrassing reminders for such aspirational people.



that's only cos being middle class isn't as good as it used to be 

now everyone is middle class we get the blame for football hooligans and everythign


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> why ask parliment for a benefits system? it isn't in their interests no matter what happens imo


But it *is* their interests. The Roman empire realised that over 2,000 years ago, and most rulers that have forgotten it have lived to rue the day.


> it's never going to work to try and 'outmuscle' westminister/the city etc the goal should not be to try and intimidate them into changing their benefits system it should be trying to get into a position where noone is reliant on it.
> 
> the old fashioned thing of 'bringing the country to a standstill' is bollocks. who wants that to happen?


With respect, I think you're missing the point. It's not about "out-muscling", it's about display. It's about saying "we're here, and this is what we *can* do *if* we need to. Now negotiate". It's all about (at least if you're operating within our current "democracy") negotiation and compromise, not about beating the government over the head or about getting beaten over the head by the apparatus of the state.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Work camps in 1979 eh?


 
Yep, circa 1977.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me, I'd "suggest" not aiming for the sky until you've secured your home turf. Local "interest groups" basing their actions and demands on local conditions. What pertains re: unemployment in Tyneside may not be the same as in Merseyside, Truro or the South Coast. Deal with local issues, perhaps federate with other groups nationally, but *don't* get bogged down in "sticking it to the government" until you've put your message across locally. Give your local community reasons to trust and or respect you for working with your community for everyone's good, and some of them will stick with you when you push your message nationally, whether they're unemployed themselves, or not.
> Just trying to develop a national movement can't really work at present, because there are too many interested parties waiting to jump on any bandwagon that might bolster their membership.



Many of the successes of the NUWM in the 30s came because rates were administered locally - enough local pressure could force the rate up for that area. They've learnt from that. But you're right in the above -i think there's lessons there for anyone pinning hopes on 'right to work' marches or other national type campaigns _right now_. After all, there's goiung to be years of this yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Yep, circa 1977.



And what was the nature of these work camps? Are you sure you're not about 40 years out?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not saying "exclude them", I'm saying "don't allow them to take control of a movement that belongs to the whole community".
> Bit of a difference.


 
A real 'movement' that 'belongs to the whole community' is unlikely to be taken control of by some small sect now is it?

The reality is they may set up a campaign, but people can choose not to join it.


----------



## Random (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Unemployment benefit is ran by the unions in scandanavian countries i think.



It is in Sweden, but people are only entitled to it if they subscribe to the union scheme (A-Kassa) and pay A Kassa fees (usually around 20 pounds a month) for at least a year.  The latest centre-right government has raised the fees a lot, causing many thousands to leave the schemes.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> And what was the nature of these work camps? Are you sure you're not about 40 years out?


 
The nature of the work camp was like most of these things, to demonstrate to the public that discipline and order would sort such 'idlers' out. 

I first came accross this geezer in 1977 - he had attended 'right to work' events, so it's probably about thirty five years ago when he was at this camp. He did escape though.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 9, 2009)

there was a initeresting workshop lead by the postie Dave Chappel at the NSSN where he talked, and there was some discussion about, the 1930s unemployed movement. was fascinating stuff and the point was about whether this was applicable now. while i am not against an unemployed movement or unemployed centres i think it is a false division .. workers are workers whether unemployed or not .. i think it is better to have community centres that cater to both employed unemployed long term sick parenst and carers etc .. and funded by the trade unions and the users


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 9, 2009)

Fuck asking the government for anything, just get out there and create credit unions, workers co-ops, local barter economies.  Just do it.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 9, 2009)

MC5 said:


> People might not realise you had to sign on twice a week thirty years ago for a cash payment of around £5.00. Work camps were also in place for the long term unemployed. A friend was sent to one - he escaped.


 i first signed on in 1978 .. and only once a week .. you could still sign on as a student in the holidays but i do not remember any talk of work camps!  in the 1930s yes but 1977? are u sure??  are you not getting, or was your mate not getting, confused with WRP camps for the unemployed?? which most people would have wanted to escape from!!


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> With respect, I think you're missing the point. It's not about "out-muscling", it's about display. It's about saying "we're here, and this is what we *can* do *if* we need to. Now negotiate". It's all about (at least if you're operating within our current "democracy") negotiation and compromise, not about beating the government over the head or about getting beaten over the head by the apparatus of the state.



I'm not missing the point. this whole 'this is what we can do if we need to' thinking is stupid

it isn't about a few million pounds anymore. the working class just don't have any leverage against the government. if you turn it into a competition it's competing with the chinese rural working class. the idea of a mass movement in europe is stupid because the bosses don't rely on european workers for anything anymore

they could maybe increase the average wage by a fiver and make food and stuff a bit cheaper and everyone would be happy again, costing them maybe 5% of their profit

i think this is one thing that people just don't realise what they are up against. there is absolutely no chance of a european communist movement, there will be no fighting in the streets over politics, only over money

that isn't to say that it's a bad thing. unemployment is a great example. people see it as this terrible thing that you don't feel like going out to the pub or the shops because you are worried about money. like it would be so great if you could go to the pub and go shopping every day. but you have to sign on once a fortnight, the rest of your time is your own, and even on the dole you can afford a shitty flat a computer that would have been brilliant 5 years ago and the internet. so use that to your advantage and stop pretending to be oliver twist etc

the thing that pisses me off the most is how people rinse it about the government beign run by a bunch of self serving cunts and then rinse it about the benefits system. it's like moaning about darth vader 

what a cunt darth vader is, lets organise a march on the deathstar


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

> Many of the successes of the NUWM in the 30s came because rates were administered locally - enough local pressure could force the rate up for that area. They've learnt from that. But you're right in the above -i think there's lessons there for anyone pinning hopes on 'right to work' marches or other national type campaigns right now. After all, there's goiung to be years of this yet.




Well, Local Housing Allowance is now delivered and agreed locally and plenty of Tories and a few LP people like Field want to se local parish relief boards, etc brought back.The fact remains the second Welfare Reform Bill will be in the Queens Speech with its policy of forcing unemployed people, etc to work and wearing yellow(community payback) bibs on, and the response from the left and civil society has been abysmal.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> i first signed on in 1978 .. and only once a week .. you could still sign on as a student in the holidays but i do not remember any talk of work camps! in the 1930s yes but 1977? are u sure?? are you not getting, or was your mate not getting, confused with WRP camps for the unemployed?? which most people would have wanted to escape from!!


 


No, it was 1971 when I first signed on. I remember that I'd told the cocky supervisors at the post office to stuff their job after returning to work after the thirteen week strike that we had lost.

I first came across the WRP at that time. They always seemed quite good at organising black youth through those centers. The work camp was not one of their ideas.


----------



## treelover (Jul 9, 2009)

> while i am not against an unemployed movement or unemployed centres i think it is a false division .. workers are workers whether unemployed or not .. i think it is better to have community centres that cater to both employed unemployed long term sick parenst and carers etc .. and funded by the trade unions and the users
> Reply With Quote



This...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 9, 2009)

Or workers and non-workers are both members of the w/c or the community, rather than non-workers being seen as potential workers. Same thing, slightly different emphasis.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Or workers and non-workers are both members of the w/c or the community, rather than non-workers being seen as potential workers. Same thing, slightly different emphasis.



yeah. why does it have to be working class? why can't it just be community?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> there was a initeresting workshop lead by the postie Dave Chappel at the NSSN where he talked, and there was some discussion about, the 1930s unemployed movement. was fascinating stuff and the point was about whether this was applicable now. while i am not against an unemployed movement or unemployed centres i think it is a false division .. workers are workers whether unemployed or not .. i think it is better to have community centres that cater to both employed unemployed long term sick parenst and carers etc .. and funded by the trade unions and the users



The ever-so-slight problem with that would be that many of the trade unions nowadays are uninterested in or unwilling to engage with anything beyond their immediate membership, and there's unfortunately always the "careerism" angle to deal with, where the union honchos are looking to the future and either being selected as an MP or getting a seat in the Lords. I don't think that what you call a "false division" is necessarily so. To me it seems rational for the unions to defend their interests (and how many unions can you name that allow long-term unemployed members?), and for the local groups of "unemployed" people to defend theirs. Union funds might very well be nice, but at what cost?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> I'm not missing the point. this whole 'this is what we can do if we need to' thinking is stupid
> 
> it isn't about a few million pounds anymore. the working class just don't have any leverage against the government. if you turn it into a competition it's competing with the chinese rural working class. the idea of a mass movement in europe is stupid because the bosses don't rely on european workers for anything anymore


You're assuming that the core issue is one of jobs. It isn't. It's about being unemployed, and about being treated with a semblance of humanity.
As for leverage, the leverage that the unemployed have is the power to disrupt, as I made plain in my first post. If you had several hundred localised disruptions two or three times a week, every week, do you really think that it would be ignored?


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're assuming that the core issue is one of jobs. It isn't. It's about being unemployed, and about being treated with a semblance of humanity.
> As for leverage, the leverage that the unemployed have is the power to disrupt, as I made plain in my first post. If you had several hundred localised disruptions two or three times a week, every week, do you really think that it would be ignored?



i think the police are pretty used to low level disruption to be honest what with the current idea of a  friday night


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

i'm gonna go out

god told me


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> yeah. why does it have to be working class? why can't it just be community?


 
On the side of the street where I live is council housing where mainly the proles in and out of work live. On the other side of the street is expensive, privately bought housing, mainly with the self-employed, managers and employers living.

We all live in this 'community', but I can't see the employer ever joining in a movement against their own class interests? Neither is it likely that those in a supervisory position would support a 'community campaign' to abolish their perceived class previledges?

As for the self-employed supporting such a 'community campaign'? Well that's not for certain either, unless the outcome is seen as serving their own interests?

I would expect if a 'community campaign' was launched against unemployment most on the other side of the street here would sneer and use the usual epithets directed against the unemployed.

Organising a campaign which specifically targets the work place, rather than 'the community', avoids these anomolies and has the potential to involve larger numbers of people from many communities. I would say more powerful too.


----------



## isitme (Jul 9, 2009)

MC5 said:


> On the side of the street where I live is council housing where mainly the proles in and out of work live. On the other side of the street is expensive, privately bought housing, mainly with the self-employed, managers and employers living.
> 
> We all live in this 'community', but I can't see the employer ever joining in a movement against their own class interests? Neither is it likely that those in a supervisory position would support a 'community campaign' to abolish their perceived class previledges?
> 
> ...



have you ever even bothered to see what these people who live in slightly more expensive houses than you think or are you just relying on your blind prejudice?


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

The 'peoples march for jobs' and the 'Jarrow marches' before it went far geographically wise, but that's all.


----------



## audiotech (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> have you ever even bothered to see what these people who live in slightly more expensive houses than you think or are you just relying on your blind prejudice?


 
I speak to some of them when our paths cross. The self-employed, now retired, ex milkman up the road in particular and I'm not prejudiced against him. Just that our world view is different.


----------



## chilango (Jul 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Capital is more dependent on its distribution networks today than ever before - the transport networks are chains that can easily be severed if people are serious and committed about it. As capital expands into the social factory so more and more places become modern day equivalenets of the old strategically important workshops that could could block the whole factories running. There are now more opportunities outside of the formal work setting than ever before.



This is true.

...and could in theory be used by any struggle. I know there have been occassions when these possibilities have been looked at but never really materialised. 

The whole "self-reduction" style tactic is also one that could in theory be used as well.

but...



butchersapron said:


> Problem is, the theoretical possibility doesn't automatically translate into reality. I found during work with the unemployed that the main obstacle is that those who aren't _already_ (for want of a better word) politicos just want to keep their head down and sort their own situation out - being unemployed sort of forces a default atomisation on you, something which is then amplified through job competition. I would imagine that would be a real obstacle today in somewhere like say the west midlands where you've got skilled workers now competing with each for limited work.



One thing a workplace tends to do is put fellow workers in proximity and communication with each other.

The social factory is designed NOT to do this.

communication, recognition of shared material interests and then mutual aid and solidarity are process that have to be gone through before we can realistically attempt to apply any of this to a specific struggle.

Thats a long way away ime.

Course, and this is the important bit, it'll all happen, or not, regardless of me.


----------



## durruti02 (Jul 9, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> The ever-so-slight problem with that would be that many of the trade unions nowadays are uninterested in or unwilling to engage with anything beyond their immediate membership, and there's unfortunately always the "careerism" angle to deal with, where the union honchos are looking to the future and either being selected as an MP or getting a seat in the Lords. I don't think that what you call a "false division" is necessarily so. To me it seems rational for the unions to defend their interests (and how many unions can you name that allow long-term unemployed members?), and for the local groups of "unemployed" people to defend theirs. Union funds might very well be nice, but at what cost?


 undeniable points VP .. but maybe thats the stuff that  needs challenging


----------



## terratech (Jul 9, 2009)

*Gearing Up*

Wow!!! The discussion for the first 24 hours has been great, Thank You All. Does this mean you will all be joining and fighting back over the raw-rap we get? I hope so as it is a site that wants your participation to mould the pages and content of the site, however if not completely impressed I hope you will all take this to your respective communities, twitter pages, blogs and websites etc and impress on them the real `FOCUS` that this movement is trying to garner.

I hope it can be taken that a lot of the argument has been gone over in considering the demands and yes they are ambitious but none more so than to get environmental issues addressed, which are now recognised if not acted upon fully. I however believe we are living through an unprecedented times and a new focus will be needed on how, why and the way we work, as already Gordon Brown in a speech to the CBI stated that as much as 5million Jobs could be lost over the next 5 years (without the assistance of the depression) as the focus turns away from hard labour.

So these times, need different answers and the first is in how our society will be shaped. The focus here in the first instance is on how we first must survive this onslaught; the political answer to any future will lie here as the demands made encompass a new set of rationalities, which could come about with the achievement of the first demand i.e. change in the work ethos, precariousness, citizen’s income. These questions being for a different group as our focus now must be on our survival and we are not without the experience to know that as night follows Day the unemployed will be attacked again if not under the most hideous assault now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> i think the police are pretty used to low level disruption to be honest what with the current idea of a  friday night



It's a lot harder to find a justification to twat someone who isn't acting belligerently and isn't pissed, especially when you've got 20 or 50 or 100 people all standing peacefully, putting their message across.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 9, 2009)

isitme said:


> have you ever even bothered to see what these people who live in slightly more expensive houses than you think or are you just relying on your blind prejudice?



I have, and you know what? My experience indicates that MC5 is sadly probably right.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 10, 2009)

Here gather the ghosts of ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘justice’; those immortal phantoms which haunt whomsoever would betray kith, kin or society just to line their own pockets. Here is the icy breath of fate that the rich feel on the back of their bloated necks – a constant reminder that the great Levelling was not defeated, merely postponed.

    “‘The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future which we are now helping to make.’”

William Morris​
Ian Bone has been enthusing about various anti-election strategies of late – Vote Nobody, None of the Above etc etc – but you just know they’ll all be an inconsequential wash out in reality and I’ve long since realised that most people who cant be arsed to vote couldnt be arsed to save you from drowning either! Theres an interesting article in the latest FREEDOM about the anarchist holy principle of not voting and arguing for a vote. It’s always amused me that many anarchists say ‘By any means necessary’ – being apparently keen to wage havoc with a machine gun but not to vote! So let’s debate the unthinkable – standing candidates at the General Election:

Thanks to everyone who’s contributed to the mostly thoughtful thread on standing for election.  Surprisingly most people were in favour of standing candidates which must indicate a bit of a sea change in ideas…but…Where now?

The seagreen society are seriously considering standing in the next elections, but if we ever going to achieve any real and lasting change then we need (collectively) to consider long term strategies. Most importantly we have to create a coherent and continual identity for our movement.

The following idea has more to do with marketing than politics and it will count for nothing if it is not combined with solid groundwork in working class communities. But I think it’s safe to say that, thanks mainly to moribund left, we have some work to do on the identity front.

With regard to creating a cohesive identity I think we could do a lot worse than look at the first (and possibly the only…) people’s political party in England, The Levellers.

This idea isn’t half as crazy as it sounds. The Levellers were committed broadly to the abolition of corruption within the Parliamentary and judicial process, toleration of religious differences, the translation of law into the common tongue, and the expansion of suffrage… Any of this sound remotely relevant today?

A new Leveller Party could celebrate what E.P.Thompson identified as the core working-class values of solidarity, collectivism, mutuality, political radicalism and self-determination. Furthermore, by citing these values historically, we can counter the right’s stranglehold on ‘tradition’.

Last but not least the use of colour has always played a major role in party politics and the sea-green ribbons associated with the original Levellers can provide us with a very powerful visual identity. Sea-green flags and rosettes could prove to be very effective marketing tools.

It’s just an idea (albeit a bit of a weird one), but I think it has some merit. What do other people think?

In July, 1646 ‘Freeborn’ John Lilburne was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London for denouncing his former commander, Edward Montagu the 2nd Earl of Manchester, as a traitor and Royalist sympathiser. It wasn’t unusual for Lilburne to be imprisoned – he remains the only man to be tried for treason by both king and parliament – but on this occasion the campaign to free him led to the formation of the political party known as the Levellers. The Levellers are arguably the first ever (some may argue only ever…) party of the people.

The Levellers were committed broadly to the abolition of corruption within the Parliamentary and judicial process, toleration of religious differences, the translation of law into the common tongue, and the expansion of suffrage. Sadly many of the Leveller’s aims remain relevant today.

363 years later we’re still suffering the effects of corruption in Parliament and we have a judicial system controlled by a non-elected self-serving elite who use a language all of their own. So the question we have to ask ourselves is where is our Leveller Party?

    “I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.”

 Thomas Rainsborough​
The Levellers knew a thing or two about political corruption and the open abuse of power. When we read the Great Leveller Petition of September 11th, 1648 we can’t help thinking that democracy would be a lot healthier if this document had become law. Whilst we have seen some improvements in the last 360 years reading the Levellers reminds us just how undemocratic modern democracy is. These are the principles put forward in the petition…

    The truth is ( and we see we must either now speak it, or for ever be silent, ) We have long expected things of an other nature from you, and such as we are confident would have given satisfaction to all serious people of all Parties.

    As,

    1. That you would have made good the supreme authoritie of the people, in this Honourable House, from all pretences of Negative Voices, either in King or Lords.


The full petition can be read here.​


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 10, 2009)

Thanks for yet another cut 'n' paste, Moz.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 10, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for yet another cut 'n' paste, Moz.



fuck you there are links to the info where it is from, oh i know attack is all some people know, i placed it there to create debate but wankers are just that in any walk of life, so if i had just done cut n past ie no links then fair point but here is linked to where i have got the info from and read not all is as you say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2009)

e19896 said:


> fuck you there are links to the info where it is from, oh i know attack is all some people know, i placed it there to create debate but wankers are just that in any walk of life, so if i had just done cut n past ie no links then fair point but here is linked to where i have got the info from and read not all is as you say.


don't get yourself in a blather.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 10, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> don't get yourself in a blather.



is that all you have try harder:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2009)

e19896 said:


> is that all you have try harder:



eh?


----------



## e19896 (Jul 11, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> eh?



christ your tiresome are you not try harder..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> fuck you there are links to the info where it is from...


Big deal.
Really.
Big fucking deal.


> ...oh i know attack is all some people know...


Except that I've never attacked you, you paranoid twat.


> ...i placed it there to create debate but wankers are just that in any walk of life, so if i had just done cut n past ie no links then fair point but here is linked to where i have got the info from and read not all is as you say.


The problem here is your assumption that anyone is actually bothered about reading "history of anarchism and leftist politics 101" stuff that they probably first read years ago. 
Why not actually engage in debate *yourself* rather than posting an almost constant barrage of *other peoples' words*?


----------



## terratech (Jul 11, 2009)

errr, could we stay on topic as I welcomed the input.... I also need `Help` marketing the movement as the only forseeable future for it, is if it is on everyones lips. What have people tried up to date?


----------



## CUMBRIANDRAGON (Jul 11, 2009)

treelover said:


> positive stuff, but in general wasting your time trying to get most of the UK left involved, historically since the late 80's they have been very poor on all this, just look at how they haven't challenged the open goal which is New Deal.
> 
> 
> an indication , watch how mnay views a G20/G8 or BNP thread gest and then look at yours...




Very true the left is more of a social group instead of political these days.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 11, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Big deal.
> Really.
> Big fucking deal.
> 
> ...



just erm as you do? and what is the problem with anarchism come on then debate? no you never attacked me erm paranoid twat another debate?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2009)

e19896 said:


> just erm as you do?


No Moz, I post my own thoughts, rather than cutting and pasting someone elses. 


> and what is the problem with anarchism come on then debate?


Which "anarchism"? Yours? Mine? Piotr Arshinov's?


> no you never attacked me erm paranoid twat another debate?


Learn to read, there's a good boy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 12, 2009)

terratech said:


> errr, could we stay on topic as I welcomed the input.... I also need `Help` marketing the movement as the only forseeable future for it, is if it is on everyones lips. What have people tried up to date?


Well, "marketing" it is the great difficulty, isn't it?
As I see it, it's got to be organic, growing in areas that are worst affected, rather than being "transplanted" _a la_ the Swappie-type operation of just turning up somewhere and handing out flyers, and that's where the difficulty lies. How do you build what really has to be a "grass roots" movement without imposing some kind of "line" for people to measure up to? M, I don't have any immediate answers, except that perhaps something along the line of the old "town meeting" format might work: Hand out fliers to people using the dole office telling them about a time and a place where they can air their grievances about the dole, and see what happens.
I can tell you this for nothing though. If you go into this with a pre-set agenda you're likely to get run out of town pretty quickly, because people don't like to feel as if they're being used.


----------



## rioted (Jul 12, 2009)

Federation of Claimants Unions?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 12, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> Learn to read, there's a good boy.


now he's 43 there's scant chance of that old dog learning new tricks.


----------



## e19896 (Jul 13, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> No Moz, I post my own thoughts, rather than cutting and pasting someone elses.
> 
> Which "anarchism"? Yours? Mine? Piotr Arshinov's?
> 
> Learn to read, there's a good boy.



learn to fuck off there's a good boy read the pm:


----------



## e19896 (Jul 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> now he's 43 there's scant chance of that old dog learning new tricks.



ha 43 guess you need an education aint it oh attack someone cause he erm might not be abel to read now who is being scum?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2009)

rioted said:


> Federation of Claimants Unions?



Well, as I said earlier, I reckon some kind of federated structure would be the "best" choice if you're going for a movement. That way you don't have to have the imposition of a central platform, and you don't have the problems inherent to a coalition (i.e. one participant attempting to over-shadow or edge out the others).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 13, 2009)

e19896 said:


> learn to fuck off there's a good boy read the pm:



PM?
What are you talking about?
You haven't sent me a PM.

Sort it out, you soapy twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2009)

e19896 said:


> ha 43 guess you need an education aint it oh attack someone cause he erm might not be abel to read now who is being scum?


no, it's not attack someone cos he may not be able to read.


----------



## terratech (Jul 13, 2009)

Thankyou violentpanda..... deffinately dont wont it to become about one person, but feel that it has to keep to some guides lines or else there iis going to be no focus.


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 17, 2009)

Forwarded from Wirral Health and Safety Welfare Centre


Bob Archer,
Press and Website Officer,
National Shop Stewards Network
--------------------------------

WIRRAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WELFARE CENTRE
GAIL HOUSE 4 ST. ANNE STREET
BIRKENHEAD WIRRAL                                                             
        L41 3SU
EMAIL: MERSEYADVICE@BTCONNECT.COM 
Tel: 0151 666 1999
www.salforducrc.co.uk


12th August 2009



Launch Of Union For Unemployed

The official unemployed figures released today show that 2.44 million people
are now unemployed in Britain. This is the highest number in over 15 years.
The Wirral H & S Centre has decided to set up an Unemployed Workers Movement in
Merseyside, with the launch meeting being held on Thursday 27th August at 2pm
at the Wirral health and Safety Welfare Centre, 4 St Anne St. Birkenhead
Wirral.
The meeting is open to all unemployed people and is a local attempt to create a
voice & representation for unemployed people, and a campaign for free training
and jobs at a proper rate of pay.
The meeting organiser, Alec McFadden, company secretary of the Wirral Centre
said “in Merseyside unemployment has increased by 54 percent in the past 12
months and is now standing at 57,340 or 6.15 percent. So is 2 percent above the
national average which is 4.1 percent. 
The level of benefit, Jobseekers Allowance is only £64.30 per week which is
clearly not enough to live on. The effects of the recession are now starting to
have a detrimental effect on people, families and communities.
•       Over 1 million young people 16-25 unemployed.
•       Increase in Homelessness & House Repossession.
•       Increase in Alcoholism & Addiction
•       Increase in Family Stress & Breakdown
•       Increase in Domestic Violence
•       Increase in Crime.
•       (according to The Audit Commission 12/08/09)
This situation will only get worse unless more focused Government action is
taken with saving manufacturing jobs a priority. Too many employers are going
into liquidation, closing down & sacking all their workers
The Government could nationalise these workplaces, (like they nationalised the
banks) save jobs and tackle youth unemployment by increasing youth training and
apprenticeship schemes.
The Financial Services Authority (F.S.A) has funded a special money guidance
project which the Wirral Centre is part of, providing free guidance on:
      Mortgages ● Borrowing ● Credit ● Savings ● Investment ●
Insurance● Pensions ● Budgeting
But much more could be done by involving Local Authorities in this type of
work.

Alec concluded “Who would have believed that the 21st Century would see the
return of 
Unemployed Workers Organisations, which were so active and necessary in the
1930’s when Unemployment reached record levels. Nobody in modern Britain
either speaks or represents
The unemployed or their families, so the centre will create the first
Unemployed Workers
Union of the 21st Century on Thursday 27th August 2009.


For Further Information
Please Contact
Alec McFadden on
0151 666 1999 or 07831 627531


----------



## terratech (Aug 18, 2009)

The same stagnant politics as we have always seen.... and the same arguements for training the government are pushing. One recession after another.... I especially need training to sweep the streets.


----------



## ajdown (Aug 18, 2009)

> This situation will only get worse unless more focused Government action is
> taken with saving manufacturing jobs a priority. Too many employers are going
> into liquidation, closing down & sacking all their workers
> 
> ...



I thought the Left's idea was to overthrow the government...? yet they expect "the man" to help bail them out?

Someone clearly hasn't thought this through properly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I thought the Left's idea was to overthrow the government...? yet they expect "the man" to help bail them out?
> 
> *Someone clearly hasn't thought this through properly*.



yes, and it's you.


----------



## ajdown (Aug 18, 2009)

So quite how is this going to sort out, in their own words, 


> • Over 1 million young people 16-25 unemployed.
> • Increase in Homelessness & House Repossession.
> • Increase in Alcoholism & Addiction
> • Increase in Family Stress & Breakdown
> ...


----------



## terratech (Aug 19, 2009)

Their not looking far Enough into it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

ajdown said:


> I thought the Left's idea was to overthrow the government...? yet they expect "the man" to help bail them out?
> 
> Someone clearly hasn't thought this through properly.



That'd be you, as you clearly have no  idea what you're talking about, you dolt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2009)

ajdown said:


> So quite how is this going to sort out, in their own words,



The idea is that people do what hey can within their own communities and locales.
Not that I expect you to grasp that. You're too busy believing the worst of people to be able to deal with such concepts.


----------



## terratech (Aug 21, 2009)

Hiya ViolentPanda.... I do not beleive that anyone here would denagrate any organisation helping the the invidual or community at this time. But I think to take existing agencies from a community centre and repackage them as something new the Union is doing is just sick, misleading, the worst politics this country can come up with. 

Now lets look at the money they will be receiving and whose pockets its going into. I guess it will be freinds and union cohorts that will benefit from a years subsidised wage so they can advise on how well the union will look after the working people, as this is all a Union can do it is there mandate, hence the emphasis on Training & Work placement.

This entrenchment reinforces the work ethic and the continuing sterotyping of the unemployed as scroungers and the vilification of those in poverty and does nothing for a Union that will become associated with contempt of those that it was supposed to help.


----------



## treelover (Aug 21, 2009)

It does seem like a retread of the 1980's Unemployed Workers Centres which while doing some good work, were very tightly controlled, often by members of the New Communist Party (NCP) and did provide paid sinecures for union people, friends, and etc and particularly in the later stages weren't very effective, many also became Blairite 'training and work' enterprises. Mcfadden ran one on the Wirral I think


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 1, 2009)

Forwarded from the Salford Unemployed Workers' Union

Bob Archer,
Press and Website Officer,
National Shop Stewards Network
----------------------------------------------------------

******FWD THIS EMAIL AS FAR AS POSSIBLE******
******WE NEED UNEMPLOYED EVERYWHERE******
******	FWD - FWD - FWD - FWD - FWD - FWD  ******

Unemployed Workers Union UWU

Progress…
A union of the Unemployed has been formed in Salford, a second branch has already opened in Merseyside. A number of other activists have expressed a desire to form Branches in East Anglia, Nottinghamshire, Plymouth,  Portsmouth, London, Manchester, Wigan, West Midlands, Wales, Leeds, Strathclyde, Dublin and Cork.  

We intend to form a Mass Union for all Unemployed people.  We wish for each Branch to affiliate to the national body, though the union should be federalised, at least in its initial stages. We can’t have a top down approach. Those involved in Salford have merely called the action, it is for others to support it…

We propose a National Conference should be held for all interested parties and so we can begin the democratic organisation of this Union of the Unemployed.

Negotiations with other National Unions have begun. Offers of support and affiliation would be welcomed. Its too long that the Unemployed have gone without proper Representation… 

The fee for an Unemployed Worker to join the Union is £1 for membership fee and a 10p monthly sub. The Union is open for workers to join at a cost of £5 per month.

The UWU is not conventional in the sense of a standard Industrial Union and legally must not be treated as such. We aim to build Solidarity between Workers and the Unemployed. We also seek proper representation and the right to work for all unemployed people.

We are currently working on Provisional systems of running and expanding the organisation. We need your participation. 

Public Appeal

We need as many Trade Union affiliations and donations. If you are in a Union then please could you affiliate your Branch to the Unemployed Workers Union. We also need volunteers in every corner of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Don’t Hesitate to get in touch.

If there are any existing local or regional groups of Unemployed then we would like to disscuss affiliation and cooperation between our organisation.

Also a very important request to PCS members is that we need Co-operation in Job Centres around the country. Many can be hostile! Please get in touch and we can work out a liaison system.

For more information Phone Alec Mcfadden on 07831627531 or email Alex Halligan at vollunteer@hotmail.co.uk

A Charter for Unemployed has been drafted which includes.

·    The Right to Work for All
·    The National Minimum Wage of £8 per hour
·    Free Transport for Unemployed
·    Free Prescriptions
·    Free Legal Advice
·    Improved Welfare Benefits
·    Unemployment Benefit 70% of New National Minimum Wage
·    Abolition of Student Fees
·    Mass Apprenticeship Scheme for All Young People
·    Nationalisation of Companies going into Bankruptcy and Liquidation, this
would save jobs and stimulate the manufacturing industry

*****All information is subject to change, these are provisional documents only. Firm constitutional rules will only be put in place at National Conference*****


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 1, 2009)

all sounds good .. any ideas of if anyone behind this politically?  guessing is this alec mcfadden Merseyside TUC ( http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2006/05/knife-attack-on-merseyside-trade.html )

and alex halligan LRC etc  ( http://alexhalligan.blogspot.com/ )


----------



## Shevek (Sep 4, 2009)

hi durruti. I could join the salford one as I am unemployed and live in the city


----------



## treelover (Sep 4, 2009)

With provisos, this is a very important development, something has been neccesary to challenge the brutalities and absurdities of the New Deal, the exploitative training agencies, the dracononian welfare reforms. 

can I suggest this thread is moved out of the gloom of protest to the bright lights of UK politics where I think it may get more coverage.


----------



## grit (Sep 4, 2009)

I've read this whole thread with great interest as a new arrival to the UK I really want to learn about the society as a whole.

This is a bit of a de-rail so apologies but would anybody be so kind as to explain to me why the unemployed feel they are getting such a bad deal?


----------

