# Rolls Royce Jerry Hicks



## crossfire (Sep 6, 2005)

Does anyone know what the current situation is? Are the workers still on strike indefinetely? Couldn't find any recent stuff on Indymedia....

Thanks


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 6, 2005)

have you seen the other thread?


----------



## belboid (Sep 6, 2005)

as far as i know they are (wer last week) and the chances of more joining them was excellant too!

more in tomorrows SW i guess


----------



## WasGeri (Sep 6, 2005)

There was something in tonight's Evening Post - strike ballot postponed for a week (from memory).


----------



## belboid (Sep 7, 2005)

can't see owt on google - latest from SW is at http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7326 (jerry hicks is an SWP member i think, so they are giving it pretty thorough coverage)


----------



## WasGeri (Sep 12, 2005)

Workers have voted against the strike, Jerry Hicks will now be accepting a pay off from Rolls Royce.


----------



## Sunspots (Sep 12, 2005)

Geri said:
			
		

> Workers have voted against the strike, Jerry Hicks will now be accepting a pay off from Rolls Royce.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4237936.stm


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

Sunspots said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4237936.stm



When Jerry Hicks was offered £50,000 shove off money, he adamantly declared at the Bristol Rally that 'Jerry Hicks cannot be bought'.

Now he's been offered £100,000, and purchased he appears to have been.

What kind of union leadership is this!?

For a moment it appeared as if their employment within an industry as bloody as theirs was truly a long-term tactical means by which to embed radical unionisation deep within the military industrial complex.

Now it looks, at best, like spin and duplicity for personal gain.

Roll on the emergence of a genuine radicalisation amongst the lowest paid members of our society, such as those at Gate Gourmet. They have far less to lose than the pampered swaggering money bags who work within the military industrial machine.

They are the future.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

what do you expect him to have done dickhead?  gone, oh well, there is no chance of me getting my jhob back now anyway, so I'll walk away with nothing?

Jerry Hicks is unlikely ever to work again now - certainly not in a well paid engineering job, he utterly _deserves_ a very healthy pay off for his _utterly wrongful_ sacking.

And you deserve to be strapped down and forced to attend seven weeks at Marxism. held straight after the other.  And going to all the Bamberry meetings.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 13, 2005)

Hicks had no choice but to take the money. Rolls Royce workers would not support him and go out on strike. End of story.
Gerry's an honourable man, he was never in it for the money.


----------



## Zaskar (Sep 13, 2005)

I understand why Jerry had to take the cash, we all need to eat and buy cool stuff, but....

He acted very unprofessionally in his role as union rep, I think he failed his members by riding roughshod over union aggreeements, this really is unwise as the management are then likely to ignore precious things like grievence procedures and health and safely.  He appeared to be a political loose cannon whose ego dominated his work for his members.  Very unfortunate.  His crusade risked damging workers rights and in the company and indeed damaging RR to the detriment of employees.

Then he gets his ego massaged, bigs himself up, pisses of the membership who then wisely do not support him.  He does look a bit 'shallow' for talkimng lefty bollox and then taking the bosses bribe.  I would have done the same in his position but wouldnt have got into the same mess, and didnt when i was shop steward for a similar sized company (imperial tobacco).

I knew he was going to loose when tony benn turned up.....


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> And you deserve to be strapped down and forced to attend seven weeks at Marxism. held straight after the other.  And going to all the Bamberry meetings.



Ha! Ha! Except that most people who think of themselves as Marxists base their opinions not on an analysis of the economy as it is, but as it was some hundred and fifty or so years ago.

As someone who understands Marxism as an economic analysis, and who is clever enough to analyse the economy in the present, instead of endlessly repeating the arguments of ghosts (something wich made Marx's blood boil), It is my argument that we cannot expect much from the likes of workers at Rolls Royce and should instead look to workers at places like Gate Gourmet.

In a nutshell, modern capitalism is dependent on massively over-extended and waver thin supply lines to maintain it's profitablity and dynamic, this is why workers at Gate Gourmet are so capable of dealing a blow to these supply lines, the modern expression of capitalism.

And why most other 'marxists' are incapable of being anything other than regurgitiative intellectual dinosaurs who spend their time reading the tea leaves of history and endlessly looking for shapes in them which somehow can be seen to resemble the present - a thoroughly unmarxist pastime.

Any more 'lessons' in marxism?


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

yes, learn to understand sarcasm ya daft sod!


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> yes, learn to understand sarcasm ya daft sod!



I understood your sarcasm, hence the sarcastic counter Ha! Ha!

You silly sod!


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

baahh  grumble.....

you can't really compare the situations at RR & GG - tho both involved workers walking out in outstanding initial displays of solidarity.  Beyond that tho......

However your second comment adds nothing to your avbsurd initial assertion, that Hicks wsa, in effect, selling out by taking the money - what _should_ he have done?


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 13, 2005)

Zaskar said:
			
		

> I understand why Jerry had to take the cash, we all need to eat and buy cool stuff, but....
> 
> He acted very unprofessionally in his role as union rep, I think he failed his members by riding roughshod over union aggreeements, this really is unwise as the management are then likely to ignore precious things like grievence procedures and health and safely.  He appeared to be a political loose cannon whose ego dominated his work for his members.  Very unfortunate.  His crusade risked damging workers rights and in the company and indeed damaging RR to the detriment of employees.
> 
> ...



And what happened to one of Bristol's largest employers Imperial Tobbacco under you and your union's brilliant strategy?


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> And what happened to one of Bristol's largest employers Imperial Tobbacco under you and your union's brilliant strategy?



How about the strategy of all unions who have successfully allowed the dismantling of almost the entirety of the UKs industrial base over the last 30 yrs? Hardly a success story anywhere. Hardly a hardliner anywhere who talks the talk and walks the walk.

The demoralising blow dealt to the miners, combined with the ongoing failure of the left to understand the econony in any way beyond lefty soundbites (as described above) has laid us all to waste.

Rediscovering the courage and sacrifices of the miners, and rediscovering how to understand the economy, instead of just moralising about it, are both sorely needed if any future headway is ever to be made.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> Rediscovering the courage and sacrifices of the miners, and rediscovering how to understand the economy, instead of just moralising about it, are both sorely needed if any future headway is ever to be made.


So what does that actually mean in the case of Jerry Hicks, and his pay off?

& have you forgotten about the engineers strikes in support of a 35hour week? - not only one of the very few cross-industry strikes of the last couple of decades, but one of the even fewer semi-succesful ones too.


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> So what does that actually mean in the case of Jerry Hicks, and his pay off?
> 
> & have you forgotten about the engineers strikes in support of a 35hour week? - not only one of the very few cross-industry strikes of the last couple of decades, but one of the even fewer semi-succesful ones too.



It was Jerry Hicks who stated he could not be bought for £50,000. Ask Jerry Hicks what the difference is. He's the one who refused the money once, then took it once it doubled. That's the appearance.

People should be careful with how they throw around statements of principle which only a few weeks later appear as dispensable soundbites of the moment.

I think the exception you point to proves the rule.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 13, 2005)

Here's what the Post says

Seems to explain the reality of Hicks' situation quite well. Pity some of the so-called left want to create an entirely different appearance to this.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> It was Jerry Hicks who stated he could not be bought for £50,000. Ask Jerry Hicks what the difference is. He's the one who refused the money once, then took it once it doubled. That's the appearance.
> 
> People should be careful with how they throw around statements of principle which only a few weeks later appear as dispensable soundbites of the moment.
> 
> I think the exception you point to proves the rule.


No, I'm asking you -you were the one who said he was 'purchased' - so it is perfectly reasonable to ask 'what _should_ he have done?'  Simply walk away?

It's very very easy to criticise the unions and the lefts attitude to them, but you aren't putting forward any coherent alternative here.


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> Here's what the Post says
> 
> Seems to explain the reality of Hicks' situation quite well. Pity some of the so-called left want to create an entirely different appearance to this.



And, of course the left will not ask itself why the other workers refused to back the strike action, just as it fails to ask itself why it no-longer has any real purchase on wider society despite the unprecendented depth and severity of neo-liberal economics.

Instead the left will continue to console itself with more slogans such as "United we'll never be defeated", when unity has clearly not been achieved, and the arguments in favor of strike action clearly not won.

The left continues to be it's own worst enemy, and until it asks these types of questions, the left will not be able to present or become an alternative to neo-liberal economics. The other path, of course, is to resort to innuedo against those on the left who ask these questions.

I will have none of that from those who will not ask the necessary questions!


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> And, of course the left will not ask itself why the other workers refused to back the strike action,


which was what then?  you haven't put forward any reasons (other than the vaguest of ones) yourself.

What should Hicks have done?  And why  do you refuse to answer?


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> which was what then?  you haven't put forward any reasons (other than the vaguest of ones) yourself.
> 
> What should Hicks have done?  And why  do you refuse to answer?



You're engaging in a typical response of the left nowadays, whereby anyone who puts forward a questioning of anyone of the left is themselves analysed, instead of analysing the failures and bad perceptions spread by the left itself.

Jerry Hicks stated he could not be bought, he has sown his own bad press by creating the impression he was in fact bought. He should have handled it much better. It's not an issue of whether to take the money. It's an issue of the context Jerry Hicks himself created regarding that money.

In short the left has failed, because at root it is essentialy not left wing. Most of those on the left do not comprehend how the economy functions, or have the skills to run it, or steer it towards socialism. People will not back strike action because they sense they are in fact endorsing a defunct system, and set of ideas, in doing so.

A full and proper comprehension of the economy is, at root, what constitutes socialism, and why most 'socialists' do not even come close to it. The left has failed, in broad terms, because, to borrow from a well used phrase, most people would not trust them to organise a piss up in a brewery, let alone a global economic system.

That is why most on the left prefer to seize upon these kinds of narrow semantic questions you yourself keep plugging, which don't address any of the fundamental failures of socialism on any level whatsover, whether on issues of PR, strike action, or economics, or anything else of any substance regarding the fundamentals of socialism, or the left in general.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

lool - so you have no idea what Hicks should have done, you just churn out a bunch of meaningless drivel. You haven't asked any questions, simply made some vague assertions. YOU are the one offering an 'analysis' but are unwilling to actually say what it means in practise.

Sounds like an excuse for you to sit on the side being a smartarse, and nothing else.


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> lool - so you have no idea what Hicks should have done, you just churn out a bunch of meaningless drivel. You haven't asked any questions, simply made some vague assertions. YOU are the one offering an 'analysis' but are unwilling to actually say what it means in practise.
> 
> Sounds like an excuse for you to sit on the side being a smartarse, and nothing else.



I've given my analysis, and, in true predicted style, you have resorted to modern lefty personal abuse, which is the only thing the left nowadays excels at, instead of excelling at comprehending socialism and how to create it.

Point proven.


----------



## belboid (Sep 13, 2005)

Probably because your 'analysis' is deeply superficial, and is actually 'assertion'.

Your 'anaylsis' appears to consist of a mere two statements:

'He should have handled it much better.' (tho how is never stated) &

'Most of those on the left do not comprehend how the economy functions, or have the skills to run it, or steer it towards socialism. People will not back strike action because they sense they are in fact endorsing a defunct system, and set of ideas, in doing so.'

Which doesn't actually say a damn thing! I take it you are a reformist of some ilk with your talk of 'steering the economy', but then that seems contradicted by your statement that 'people' recognise a defunct system/set of idea's - without explaining why one substantial section of the workforce _did_ walk out in support of JH, or how there could be the significant strikes you seemed to know nothing about over the 35 hour week.  Or how and why the Gate Gourmet workers haven't seen through this system.

All you have done is said 'the lefts crap', which may well be true, but it isn't even the beginning of an answer.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 13, 2005)

munkeeunit said:
			
		

> You're engaging in a typical response of the left nowadays, whereby anyone who puts forward a questioning of anyone of the left is themselves analysed, instead of analysing the failures and bad perceptions spread by the left itself.



I have no problem if you want to question the left, right, centre or anywhere else. I think Hicks and Amicus did a lot of things wrong myself. But attacking someone's integrity is hardly useful or constructive at any time and in this case is plain wrong.


----------



## munkeeunit (Sep 13, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> Probably because your 'analysis' is deeply superficial, and is actually 'assertion'.
> 
> Your 'anaylsis' appears to consist of a mere two statements:
> 
> ...



No, I'm not a reformist. If anything I'm marxist, but a free-thinking one. I think that's pretty clear.

I'm also keen to see a way of fusing much of those ideas with anarchism, and, if you like, the hidden hand of automonous action which could potentially be nurtured in a similar way to the so called 'hidden hand' of capitalism. There's a lot of room to blend these ideas, and non-hierarchically.

Yes, the left is crap, abysmally crap. 

The last 30 yrs of union and political leadership have been the barrel scrapings of history type of crap, in general. The sooner they are all retired off the better.


----------



## belboid (Sep 14, 2005)

just heard tonight, that just before the ballot was held, rolls royce bosses announced that if there was a vote to strike, they would shut the factory down!  now, although i would suspect that to be a bluff, it must have had a substantial influence on how people voted.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 14, 2005)

belboid said:
			
		

> just heard tonight, that just before the ballot was held, rolls royce bosses announced that if there was a vote to strike, they would shut the factory down!  now, although i would suspect that to be a bluff, it must have had a substantial influence on how people voted.



This has been a very shrewd piece of union-busting by RR throughout. Hicks never really stood a chance.


----------



## Zaskar (Sep 16, 2005)

Hicks acted against the interests of his members and has paid the price.  He really was a gift to the bosses actually if you think about it.

As for my part in the downfall of imperial tobacco, well i had little to do with board room decisions and abided by the will of the membership which was to negotiate very favourable relocaction / voluntary redundancy payoffs to workers.

That was what I was asked to do, that was what I did.


----------



## Jografer (Sep 17, 2005)

Full pay to next year, £100,000 in the back pocket & a well paid job with the union..... the really funny bit is all the divvies on this thread explaining how this squares with him not being for sale...... obviously they've all got Galloway as a role model.....


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 17, 2005)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ... obviously they've all got Galloway as a role model.....



As opposed to Margaret Thatcher?


----------



## Jografer (Sep 17, 2005)

bristol_citizen said:
			
		

> As opposed to Margaret Thatcher?




....ouch, that sharp analytical wit we've all come to know & love...

by the way, how does "I'm not for sale" translate into "£100K, that'll do nicely" .......


----------



## bristol_citizen (Sep 17, 2005)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ....ouch, that sharp analytical wit we've all come to know & love...
> 
> by the way, how does "I'm not for sale" translate into "£100K, that'll do nicely" .......



Suggest you read the thread.


----------

