# Hundreds of workers protest against Italians/Foreigners 'taking jobs'...



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

> Oil refineries protest escalates
> Lindsey Oil Refinery protest
> Workers protest outside the main gates to the Lindsey Oil Refinery
> 
> ...





I wish someone else had posted this, not sure why they haven't, but it needs discussing: hundreds of workers have walked out after the company Total, through a contractor, Jacobs, employed over 90 Italian workers for a project at their Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire. There have been very angry mass protests with banners from Unison and others spotted, and more planned. Workers at the plant say they have 'marvelled' at the 'solidarity' of those who have walked out, with the unemployed, etc. It is escalating as hundreds of workers at the neighbouring Conoco Phillips refinery joined them outside the gates of Lindsey Oil Refinery on Thursday. There have also been reports of wildcat action at other sites, including the Dimlington and Easington gas terminals in East Yorkshire

On a day, when there are mass labour movement, etc, strikes in France , this can't be the best way to display anger with the Gov't,etc, yet i suspect here in the UK , we will see more of it, as frustrations manifest themselves in various and not always palatable ways. The is clearly anger growing in the country about the recession/slump, etc, the unions must harness this anger into identifying the real culprit, NL and their obssession with globalisation and surely the left should examine its priorities at this time.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jan 29, 2009)

I thought it was 90 workers they employed?


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

edited,

The Express it trying to stir things up

http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-01-29


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 29, 2009)

And they've got a virtual monopoly on pizza restaurants. It's a disgrace.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 29, 2009)

I read that a European construction company who have been sourced to build a power station in the UK have stated that they will only be employing workers from their country. It did not state the reason for their decision. But this will stoke up problems in the area of the project should it be an area of high unemployment.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2009)

It *is* about 200 Italian workers taken on, the 80-90 figure is for those who _initally_ walked out in protest. It's now about 600 with a sympathy walkout from the factory next door. Unison reps to the fore.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jan 29, 2009)

"Italian Insult To Jobless Britons"

Oh please fuck off.


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jan 29, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It *is* about 200 Italian workers taken on, the 80-90 figure is for those who _initally_ walked out in protest. It's now about 600 with a sympathy walkout from the factory next door. Unison reps to the fore.



I wonder how the long the project is for? And if there were/are any plans to accomodate the locals? So little information...


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

'So little information... '


from whom?


----------



## Nigel (Jan 29, 2009)

Relatively sympathetic, although should be on the basis of workers undermining pay and conditions. Could be the start of something, even if initially reactionary and chauvanistic.

If i was working there I think I would have walked out, with other workers, but try to find initiative to stop lay offs and if other workers came in that they work for same pay and conditions, through Union recognition and as arbitrator.
Does'nt seem all bad


----------



## 100% masahiko (Jan 29, 2009)

treelover said:


> 'So little information... '
> 
> 
> from whom?



newsource


----------



## teuchter (Jan 29, 2009)

So... it's OK for trade unions to object to foreign workers taking jobs in the UK, but not, say, the BNP?

Is that how this works?


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> I read that a European construction company who have been sourced to build a power station in the UK have stated that they will only be employing workers from their country. It did not state the reason for their decision. But this will stoke up problems in the area of the project should it be an area of high unemployment.




Staythorpe, there has already been action there, they are employing Polish and Spanish workers and have had billets built for them with their own amenities.

They are being paid well under what UK workers would be paid.

This is now happening all over the country.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

> A Unite union shop steward, who did not wish to be named, said they were angry that foreigners were being employed by the contractor, Jacobs, at a time when British workers were being laid off.


Oh, for fucks sake


----------



## glenquagmire (Jan 29, 2009)

Surely the point is the rates they are being paid at.

If they are being paid under rates, British workers are entirely right to strike, though the slogans used have to be chosen carefully.

If they're being paid the same and in all respects are treated exactly the same, it's a case of xenophobic protectionism and unjustified.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jan 29, 2009)

The trouble is that the Union bureaucrats have been utterly spineless in providing a lead in fighting the bosses over jobs, so people start hitting out at other workers.


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Jan 29, 2009)

sorry reading the article those scumbag union bureaucrats are actually directing the anger against foreign workers rather than the bosses. 

Many of the UNITE bureaucrats should be called scabs, in South Wales they have refused to fight job cuts and tried to negotiate for people to work 5 days for 4 days pay and all that kind of shit.

There was a whiff of this racism in the closure of Hoover being pushed through in S.Wales against the company being owned by Italians, we tried to deflect this by explaining 1) The issue was that the bosses were capitalists & they act this way because they want to make profit 2) Italian workers are facing the same rap, only they are actually fighting the bosses 3) We got a message of solidarity sent from Italian trade unions.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 29, 2009)

glenquagmire said:


> Surely the point is the rates they are being paid at.
> 
> If they are being paid under rates, British workers are entirely right to strike, though the slogans used have to be chosen carefully.
> 
> If they're being paid the same and in all respects are treated exactly the same, it's a case of xenophobic protectionism and unjustified.



They are being paid less, I thought this was the whole point.


----------



## glenquagmire (Jan 29, 2009)

I assumed so, but it's not made clear in the news reports I've seen.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> They are being paid less, I thought this was the whole point.


Surely then, the thing to demand is equal pay for equal work, not "keep the foreigners out"?


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Surely then, the thing to demand is equal pay for equal work, not "keep the foreigners out"?



That was the gist of the argument I heard being made on the news, not "keep the foreigners out".


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Surely then, the thing to demand is equal pay for equal work, not "keep the foreigners out"?


 
Not when we are seeing record rises in unemployment in the UK.
But we are missing the real point of the whole issue. With much of what remains of British industry being owned by foreign corporations, as I said at the time, it will be much more politically expedient in their home country for these foreign corporations to lay off British workers and replace them with workers from their home country.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Not when we are seeing record rises in unemployment in the UK.
> But we are missing the real point of the whole issue. With much of what remains of British industry being owned by foreign corporations, as I said at the time, it will be much more politically expedient in their home country for these foreign corporations to lay off British workers and replace them with workers from their home country.



As well as cheaper.  The last thing we want is to have imported labour, under poorer conditions, lower pay and with a vastly inferior relationship to the company (since they could just be dumped outside the gates without any support structure / way of getting home / legal status in this country  if they got fired) than a domestic worker would have.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Not when we are seeing record rises in unemployment in the UK.
> But we are missing the real point of the whole issue. With much of what remains of British industry being owned by foreign corporations, as I said at the time, it will be much more politically expedient in their home country for these foreign corporations to lay off British workers and replace them with workers from their home country.


So instead of fighting the redundancies, you attack foreign workers, rendering them more vulnerable, which not only makes them more usable by the company as a reserve army of labour, but makes them disinclined to stand alongside you when you're under attack?  Sensible.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> That was the gist of the argument I heard being made on the news, not "keep the foreigners out".


That shop steward appears to disagree.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So instead of fighting the redundancies, you attack foreign workers, rendering them more vulnerable, which not only makes them more usable by the company as a reserve army of labour, but makes them disinclined to stand alongside you when you're under attack? Sensible.


 
No, instead of allowing foriegn owned corporations import labour from their home countries at a cheaper rate, with the imported labour taking a job from from a UK national and paying income tax into the treasury of their home country, so a double loss to the UK economy, we ensure that at least 50% of the labour for these projects are UK nationals and any improted foriegn labour pays income tax to the UK treasury and is on the same wage as UK labour.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> No, instead of allowing foriegn owned corporations import labour from their home countries at a cheaper rate, with the imported labour taking a job from from a UK national and paying income tax into the treasury of their home country, so a double loss to the UK economy, we ensure that at least 50% of the labour for these projects are UK nationals and any improted foriegn labour pays income tax to the UK treasury and is on the same wage as UK labour.


Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries?  There's a word for policies like that, and not one that you'd like, I suspect.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2009)

Mosty of those who walked out appeared to be wearing flash jackets with slogans like 'british jobs for british workers' rather than 'british rates for all workers' or something like that - i've no idea if they were work provided or union provided, but there was a least one unison steward arguing along the lines of attacking foreign workers rather than employers.


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> No, instead of allowing foriegn owned corporations import labour from their home countries at a cheaper rate, with the imported labour taking a job from from a UK national and paying income tax into the treasury of their home country, so a double loss to the UK economy, we ensure that at least 50% of the labour for these projects are UK nationals and any improted foriegn labour pays income tax to the UK treasury and is on the same wage as UK labour.



correct.

But the employers don't have to pay the correct rate if they put the overseas workers up in billets, the reduction in rate can be used as a board payment, some polish lads I was working with had £5 an hour deducted for this, his food and lodgings were provided for an exorbitant rate, this is perfectly legal.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries? There's a word for policies like that, and not one that you'd like, I suspect.


 
Because the imported labour is taking jobs and revenue (if that labour is paid and taxed through their home country) from the UK. We are about to hit a fucking hard recession maybe even a depression and if the UK is going to mitigate the circumstances of it we need a UK first policy. Unfortunately with NuLab following a "Wimbledon" economic policy (it does not matter if we win it as long as we hold it) we have sold much of our industry to overseas. The UK is now going to suffer for this very short sighted economic policy and most of us would rather see UK citizens working and earning than imported labour coming to the UK at a lower rate and paying their income tax to a foreign treasury. Call it/me what you want, but I call it common sense. Do you think other countries are going to be thinking along the same lines as you are?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 29, 2009)

The Jobs should be filled by Uk workers if possible .If foreign labour is needed
it should be because uk cant fill the post and not as an excuse to save money. When I worked in the USA as a nurse it was because there was a shortage of nurses .Probably was cheaper than an American RN but since they couldn't get any hardly the point.
  The Italians should be treated well its whoever came up with this idea who is the cunt.


----------



## tombowler (Jan 29, 2009)

is it really true that workers employed to work in the UK on a UK construction/engerneering  project whilst living in the UK do not pay income tax and NI? Surley that would be tax evasion?

We do have issues in the UK with Employmnet I have moved from an area where unemployment remained constant despite a massive influx of polish, Slovak and Czech workers. They all took jobs that the local population thought were beneath them. There were some frictions caused by buliding companies offering the immigrant workeres a lower rate and employing them in favour of the higher priced uk workers, This gave the BNP a good foothold and they won many seats in the local elections (stoke on trent) this however was made worse by a totaaly usless and corrupt labour council who had been wasitng money and slowly destroying the town itself.

I think it is unethical to employ workers at a lower rate because they are foreign nationals but perhaps we have been paying some trades too much to support the over inflated house prices and wages need to come down a little?

The OP does seem to indicate that this is beeing made into a racial issue and I am sure the BNP and the likes will try to use this to win votes, I worry for the future with racist bully boys winning voted from those to thick to see the fault is not the immigrant workers but the contiued falure of tory and NL govts to get the country on a sound financial footing. GB is a major architect of the so named credit crunch along with the good old usa who both ran a borrrow now pay later policy giving the poeple the example to borrow borrow borrow to get everthing they want thus giving us the mess we now have.

I was worried that the problem was in Iytaly with immigrant workers as I hope to be one late this year or early next! lets hope they have a more reasonable approach to worker migration. I am so glad I left the midlands!


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 29, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Do you think other countries are going to be thinking along the same lines as you are?


Countries don't think at all, nor are they unified entities with a common set of interests.  "UK first" is a stupid and divisive idea that completely misses the point.  Do you think I give a shit where tax revenue or profit margins go?  I never see any of it.

Once again, why should UK nationals take precedence over foreign workers?


----------



## chilango (Jan 29, 2009)

If its any consolation to some of you I have a job in Italy and pay tax in the UK.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 29, 2009)

tombowler said:


> is it really true that workers employed to work in the UK on a UK construction/engerneering  project whilst living in the UK do not pay income tax and NI? Surley that would be tax evasion?



I know that, for short projects, you could class yourself as non-dom, but that's probably changed now.




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> Countries don't think at all, nor are they unified entities with a common set of interests. "UK first" is a stupid and divisive idea that completely misses the point. Do you think I give a shit where tax revenue or profit margins go? I never see any of it.



Errrr.... you live in the UK, yes? 

If so, I suspect you certainly will start to give a shit where tax revenues go when public spending has to be slashed due to the recession and a sharp decrease in tax receipts: when rubbish starts piling up in the streets, schools have to close one day a week, NHS budgets are slashed and you cannot get an appointment with your doctor, government has to cut welfare payments, crime goes through the roof, social services contract massively and there is no public money to repair infrastructure so it gets sold off to foreign corporations who milk you blind.

And you then lose your job.

The problem with the "no borders" argument is that we are politically still a nation state in terms of representation, tax and spend, but we are now a global market state in terms of finance, labour and the economy. The two states are infinately connected, but they don't sit together particularly well at the moment.

If you wanted a full "no borders" across Europe, then the best thing to do would be to go wholesale into a European republic, and dissolve the national sovereignty of the British state, so our position within the EU would be then akin to say Oregon's position within the US -- ie we would become part of a United States of Europe.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries? There's a word for policies like that, and not one that you'd like, I suspect.



Oh for fucks sake, you realise it is attitudes like this which are boosting the BNPs support base? You are a prime example of why the broad Left is in many cases useless in this country. You are out of touch with peoples feelings on the situation, and seem arrogant to boot! Go on call him a "wacist" because he disagrees with you.....




> Once again, why should UK nationals take precedence over foreign workers?



Depends whether you mean foreign nationals who reside here already, foreign workers taking on jobs paid at a decent rate comparable to others....  or vunerable workers shipped in from over seas like cattle to meet some fuckers bottom line. As for why the UK nationals or more importantly the LOCAL COMMUNITY should take precendent, maybe because this is their home, it is where their families are and their life is.  Who paid for the infastructure out of their taxes which the company benefits from?
Why should communities have unemployment forced on them by companies importing foreign workers and paying them less then the local community?
Why should job prospects vanish and the younger members of the community be forced out to London etc. to find work?
The joys of globalization. 
Why don't you catch the train over to Lincolnshire and go ask the people what they think eh? Ask them why they should be unemployed and their community should go down the pan so some cunts can make a fast buck. Because that is exactly what will happen as the economy gets worst and people get thrown on the scrap heap.
This will also encourage the BNP and other shits to move into the area and turn it into a racial issue, and whilst hand wringers quibble over the language some shop steward used the BNP really will be spouting racist shit, playing up divisions and risk turning to situation into another 2001.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries?  There's a word for policies like that, and not one that you'd like, I suspect.



INTERNATIONALISM.

As opposed to Liberal ideas that people should be free to move whereever the work is.....We should be looking at redistibuting wealth not people across continents and borders.

Support for free market policies on migration just make the world a far more unequal place.
Its sad that somebody like you inbloom who obviously wants a fairer world so badly misunderstands the issue of economic migration.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 29, 2009)

dylanredefined said:


> The Jobs should be filled by Uk workers if possible .If foreign labour is needed
> it should be because uk cant fill the post and not as an excuse to save money.



That would be the case if they were being employed by a British company, they aren't! If you read the article an Italian company won a contract in what is after all a European market and brought over their own people, which they are perfectly entitled to. The workers will be paying income tax on their earnings, probably (depending on the length of the job) in Italy as is their right in the EU. TBH it looks like the unions are jumping on the xenophobic, lets blame the foreigners band wagon, a very nasty development IMO.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 29, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Its sad that somebody like you inbloom who obviously wants a fairer world so badly misunderstands the issue of economic migration.



but this isn't economic migration, read my previous post.


----------



## elbows (Jan 29, 2009)

This is another important front in the battle to save the globalisation project.

Protectionism comes in many forms, things could unravel very quickly.

I have rather mixed feelings about all of this stuff. When we see the baby thrown out with the bath water, people may come to understand the upside of globalisation, once its gone. The downside has always been easy to spot, the economic woetime will simply magnify it.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> That would be the case if they were being employed by a British company, they aren't! If you read the article an Italian company won a contract in what is after all a European market and brought over their own people, which they are perfectly entitled to. The workers will be paying income tax on their earnings, probably (depending on the length of the job) in Italy as is their right in the EU.



Which is why the EU is a shitty mess. Companies should pay all tax to the county/city they are based in my opinion i.e. to the local community. Otherwise they benefit from the infastructure and services and pay nothing towards it.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 29, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Companies should pay all tax to the county/city they are based in my opinion i.e. to the local community.


iirc, that's why multinationals etc have UK ltd companies here registered at Companies House, with UK based directors - so that they can pay staff, raise invoices, pay VAT etc in the UK

I'm reasonably (but not 100% certain) sure that if a business is raising invoices here it has to have a UK presence of some sort for VAT purposes at least


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Which is why the EU is a shitty mess. Companies should pay all tax to the county/city they are based in my opinion i.e. to the local community. Otherwise they benefit from the infastructure and services and pay nothing towards it.



Far too complex.

In the construction industry we are the only country that will allow foreign and UK based companies to pay migrant workers lower rates that previously agreed for that skill, I warned of this a few years ago, now the financial incentives are there for the taking with the strong euro, the government have made it so.

The UK is the laughing stock of Europe.

Every other EU country has leglisation in place so companies HAVE to pay the agreed rates.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 29, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Which is why the EU is a shitty mess. Companies should pay all tax to the county/city they are based in my opinion i.e. to the local community. Otherwise they benefit from the infastructure and services and pay nothing towards it.



Which is what they do, this is an Italian company BASED in Italy and paying taxes there, working on a contract in the UK, what's the problem?

E2A the EU may have its problems but it aint so bad.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 29, 2009)

GoneCoastal said:


> I'm reasonably (but not 100% certain) sure that if a business is raising invoices here it has to have a UK presence of some sort for VAT purposes at least



I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case for companies based in other EU countries although some German companies have become UK Ltd as it's less complicated and a hell of a lot cheaper than being a GmbH.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

Apparently it is spreading across Teeside and other 'elements' are sticking their oar in. From what i gather many people not connected to the plant are getting involved, young guys, particularly. Its looks like this is is a lightning rod for globalisation and its discontents, but this time its workers, not students, etc . One has to be concerned how this pans out, but cries of racist or xenophobe won't be productive, nor will ignoring it as seem to be happening on the Left blogosphere, etc,


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> Which is what they do, this is an Italian company BASED in Italy and paying taxes there, working on a contract in the UK, what's the problem?



Yes an Italian based company working in the UK, using UK infastructure and importing staff at a lower rate to work in the UK, paying all taxes back to Italy (unless I have missed something with regards to paying UK tax). You can't see the problem with that? You can't see how things like this have a negative impact on local communities?

How about those in the financial sector who are residents of Monaco, earn obscene salaries in the UK and ferry the money out to tax havens?

How about a UK company working in Africa importing British workers to work on the oil fields, and then exporting profit and tax back to the UK?


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> Apparently it is spreading across Teeside and other 'elements' are sticking their oar in. From what i gather many people not connected to the plant are getting involved, young guys, particularly. Its looks like this is is a lightning rod for globalisation and its discontents, but this time its workers, not students, etc . One has to be concerned how this pans out, but cries of racist or xenophobe won't be productive, nor will ignoring it as seem to be happening on the Left blogosphere, etc,



This ^

Now that picture of the Italian chap fliping off the camera has been spread over the front pages of newspaper and the Beeb, it is only going to inflame the situation. Watch the far right try and capatalise on this, whilst hand wringers call the workers racist/xenophobes, then watch the situation esculate.


----------



## Mr Smin (Jan 29, 2009)

snadge said:


> correct.
> 
> But the employers don't have to pay the correct rate if they put the overseas workers up in billets, the reduction in rate can be used as a board payment, some polish lads I was working with had £5 an hour deducted for this, his food and lodgings were provided for an exorbitant rate, this is perfectly legal.



He had an hourly deduction for a fixed service? The more hours he worked, the more he paid for food and lodgings? Might be legal but it's still a scam.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

> Now that picture of the Italian chap fliping off the camera has been spread over the front pages of newspaper and the Beeb, it is only going to inflame the situation




yes, i fear so, one guy and they tar all the Italian workers, the picture will become a symbolic one, its going to get nasty.


btw, its spread a bit more, unofficial strike action was also taken by workers at Scottish Power’s Longannet power station in Fife.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 29, 2009)

It must be annoying to be part of the modern British left. 

You bemoan the lack of unity amongst the working classes and then when they do show some of it, well its all a bit awkward.

LOL.


----------



## Bun (Jan 29, 2009)

You mean life isn't like a socialist worker editorial!


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 29, 2009)

Bun said:


> You mean life isn't like a socialist worker editorial!







Can you imagine them trying to work out who to support and what to print on the banners ?


----------



## cantsin (Jan 29, 2009)

treelover said:


> I wish someone else had posted this, not sure why they haven't, but it needs discussing: hundreds of workers have walked out after the company Total, through a contractor, Jacobs, employed over 90 Italian workers for a project at their Lindsey refinery in North Lincolnshire. There have been very angry mass protests with banners from Unison and others spotted, and more planned. Workers at the plant say they have 'marvelled' at the 'solidarity' of those who have walked out, with the unemployed, etc. It is escalating as hundreds of workers at the neighbouring Conoco Phillips refinery joined them outside the gates of Lindsey Oil Refinery on Thursday. There have also been reports of wildcat action at other sites, including the Dimlington and Easington gas terminals in East Yorkshire
> 
> On a day, when there are mass labour movement, etc, strikes in France , this can't be the best way to display anger with the Gov't,etc, yet i suspect here in the UK , we will see more of it, as frustrations manifest themselves in various and not always palatable ways. The is clearly anger growing in the country about the recession/slump, etc, the unions must harness this anger into identifying the real culprit, NL and their obssession with globalisation and surely the left should examine its priorities at this time.



yeah , lets all hope "the unions harness this anger " eh...then dissipate it in time honoured fashion = job done .


----------



## derf (Jan 29, 2009)

The rights and wrongs I'll leave for others to debate but I did know of two factories in my old area that dumped all their local staff over as short a time as possible in favour of agency workers.
These workers were all foreigners employed day to day.
My understanding of the situation was that the factory paid minimum wage + a small commission to the employment company but there was no sick leave, holiday pay and so on to consider so they came out sweet on the deal.
The practical upshot was that all the local workers were dumped and the new people were all asylum seekers and assorted east Europeans.
The factory management didn't care about the legality of the workers as that was down to the agent and the factory had full denial. Not that any bugger seemed to be checking anyway.

As I said I'll leave the debate to others but that's what was happening there and there is a fair chance it's the same thing in this case.


----------



## Bun (Jan 29, 2009)

Can you imagine them trying to work out who to support and what to print on the banners ?



Down with your false consciousness! Fight for the right to be unemployed!


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

Mr Smin said:


> He had an hourly deduction for a fixed service? The more hours he worked, the more he paid for food and lodgings? Might be legal but it's still a scam.



Of course it's a scam, a legal one that only seems to be allowed in the UK.

The foreign workers are contracted to work a certain amount of hours, overtime payment doesn't come into it, Companies buy houses in the local towns and pile 5/6 into a house, they make a profit on the accommodation as well, alongside a tidy profit when the property is sold.


This is happening all over the country.


----------



## nightbreed (Jan 29, 2009)

Power plant staff stage walk-out
Longannet Power Station
Hundreds of contractors at Longannet Power Station have walked out

Hundreds of workers at a Fife power station have staged an unofficial
walk-out in support of workers in England protesting over use of
foreign labour.

The contract workers based at Longannet Power Station walked off shift
after a meeting on Thursday.

They are supporting contract workers in England who say that other
companies are using Spanish and Italian staff ahead of UK-based staff.

Workers at Grangemouth remain at work but are to attend a meeting on
Friday.

A Scottish Power spokeswoman said: "Scottish Power can confirm that
contractors working at Longannet Power Station in Fife have taken part
in unofficial industrial action which is part of a UK-wide campaign
concerning the issue of foreign workers.

"Scottish Power employees are not taking part in the campaign and
production of power supplies are not affected in the short-term."

A worker, who wished to remain anonymous told BBC Scotland: "We're
very happy working with foreign workers, we just want to know they
have exhausted the British workforce first."
"We think it is the thin end of the wedge to use foreign workers.

"We're worried about unemployment, there's a recession on at the
moment and there are plenty of skilled workers in Britain, unemployed,
to cope with any work we're going to get.

"It's about the right to work" 

This was emailed to me from a Left Yahoo mailing list without a source. Im assuming its from the BBC but cant find it. The important bit I have underlined.I remember hearing similar coments from workers at the shutdown at Fawley in 2006.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

'Derek Simpson, joint leader of Unite, warned: "The Government must take urgent action to deal with this situation as tensions are reaching boiling point."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...tracts-For-Foreigners/Article/200901415213359


Its gone global, all over the net, i wonder if certain groups will start making comparisons with the Dockers walkout, etc in support of Enoch.


wonder what would happen if the SWP paper sellers turned up!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

glenquagmire said:


> Surely the point is the rates they are being paid at.
> 
> If they are being paid under rates, British workers are entirely right to strike, though the slogans used have to be chosen carefully.
> 
> If they're being paid the same and in all respects are treated exactly the same, it's a case of xenophobic protectionism and unjustified.



This.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

Problem is, Froggie, for all the pontificating, they, the workers, are not listening to the left or anyone else, the BNP are now there and there are to be more protests tomorrow.,



> Cleethorpes MP Shona McIsaac said: "It's like a red rag to a bull for people in our community who are out of work and who have skills that could be used in this construction project."
> 
> Ms McIsaac said she had brought the matter up with Gordon Brown.





Oh and the Local blairite arsehole MP has chipped in, what a hypocrite, she and Nl were the biggest cheerleaders for the globalised open economy and now she turns on the workers she encouraged to the Uk!,


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So instead of fighting the redundancies, you attack foreign workers, rendering them more vulnerable, which not only makes them more usable by the company as a reserve army of labour, but makes them disinclined to stand alongside you when you're under attack?  Sensible.



This as well


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> The foreign workers are being housed in large, grey housing barges which are moored in Grimsby docks.



So this is what Britain in the 21st C has come too. It sounds like something out the Victorian era.


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

treelover said:


> Its gone global, all over the net, i wonder if certain groups will start making comparisons with the Dockers walkout, etc in support of Enoch.



This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Racism, this is about the mobility of cheap labour in a globalised economy, UK gov are allowing companies to use foreign labour to drive down wages, this is not happening in other EU countries due to legal framework.

I as a construction worker embrace my fellow workers from the EU and will fight for them to work for the same privileges as I am entitled to but our government allows multinationals to abuse this process.

Now every company is utilising foreign Labour on a reduced rate, Babcocks set up foreign employment agencies to circumnavigate the legal framework and everyone has followed suit.

Where are the fucking socialists now, now Pandora's box has been opened, accusing us of Racism?

Wankers.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 29, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> This.



Well not necessarily - there are potentially issues regarding the deliberate contracting out of services to divide the workforce and avoid having to deal with them on an equal basis too. It's hardly unknown. It isn't just about the pay that they may or may not be receiving.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> So this is what Britain in the 21st C has come too. It sounds like something out the Victorian era.



fucks sake! and yeah, the stupid reactions okf sections of the left are bound to lead to racism ..


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well not necessarily - there are potentially issues regarding the deliberate contracting out of services to divide the workforce and avoid having to deal with them on an equal basis too. It's hardly unknown. It isn't just about the pay that they may or may not be receiving.



that's true as well - some of the people at my last job said that they had had a lot of agency staff in the last year who were mostly foreign and didn't speak good english, as well as working quite irregular hours and being there for very short periods of time, so the other people working there felt very "separate" from them


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> fucks sake!


Pretty wretched isn't it. At least it shows what utter bastards these people are who run the contracting firm. I can imagine tensions in Grimsby will not be helped either. All it will take is one silly drunken fight between one of the workers and a local after a few beers, or something petty like this and things risk kicking off .


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 29, 2009)

> as well as working quite irregular hours and being there for very short periods of time, so the other people working there felt very "separate" from them



That reminds me of something that somebody from Lincolshire was talking about last year. Essentially saying how their wife felt isolated at work because of that above situation. People came and went as well so often you never got to know anybody.
I'm sure the company who owned the factory couldn't give two fucks.


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

> Where are the fucking socialists now, now Pandora's box has been opened, accusing us of Racism?
> 
> Wankers.
> Reply With Quote





harsh words Snadge, having said that, I've scanned all the left wing blogs, etc, there is absolutely nothing on this two major days of walkouts, all illegal wildcats all one can see is about palestine. There seems to be a blanket refusal to acknowledge what is happening, I am genuinely interested to know why this is, is it too unpalatable?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 29, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> that's true as well - some of the people at my last job said that they had had a lot of agency staff in the last year who were mostly foreign and didn't speak good english, as well as working quite irregular hours and being there for very short periods of time, so the other people working there felt very "separate" from them



There's a reason why it's a commonplace practice to outsource and subcontract, and it's not necessarily to do with immediate price - often it can be more expensive to hire contractors and consultants. It's because management can deal with them all individually, either because there are actually language barriers as you say, or just because they are different groups employed by different people. Even if they all grew up in the same area there'd still be a lack of cohesion, particularly if they're not on long contracts anyway.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 29, 2009)

It's not that the staff are protesting against foreigners taking jobs, is it? Or at least, that's not the reason for the walkout over this particular issue. But now they'll get called racist, not get their complaints listened to, and some of them will go 'OK, you reckon I'm a racist? Well, fuck it, I might as well be one then.'


----------



## treelover (Jan 29, 2009)

> Pretty wretched isn't it. At least it shows what utter bastards these people are who run the contracting firm. I can imagine tensions in Grimsby will not be helped either. All it will take is one silly drunken fight between one of the workers and a local after a few beers, or something petty like this and things risk kicking off





It is pretty grim up near the docks, my friends Narrow boat/barge is up near the Marina which is just past it, its dark and empty, she says that many Russians and Ukrainians have moved there and that there are real tensions with the locals.

hope nothing happens....


----------



## scifisam (Jan 29, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There's a reason why it's a commonplace practice to outsource and subcontract, and it's not necessarily to do with immediate price - often it can be more expensive to hire contractors and consultants. It's because management can deal with them all individually, either because there are actually language barriers as you say, or just because they are different groups employed by different people. Even if they all grew up in the same area there'd still be a lack of cohesion, particularly if they're not on long contracts anyway.



That reminds me of the way slaves in the US were seperated from others who hailed from the same area. I know, I know, it's nowhere near as bad, but it is the same divide-and-conquer mindset. Only the employers benefit. 

If some workers in Italy, in an area of high unemployment, protested about a contract being given to a foreign firm who then brought in a load of foreign staff and paid them less under worse conditions rather than hiring people from the local area, I'd feel sympathetic towards them. They should be targeting their actions towards the employers, yes, but isn't that what a strike is supposed to do?


----------



## snadge (Jan 29, 2009)

scifisam said:


> It's not that the staff are protesting against foreigners taking jobs, is it? Or at least, that's not the reason for the walkout over this particular issue. But now they'll get called racist, not get their complaints listened to, and some of them will go 'OK, you reckon I'm a racist? Well, fuck it, I might as well be one then.'



I have worked in construction for years and this attitude is prevalent, most people I have met are not racist and have fought long and hard to prove that it is not about the foreign devil taking our jobs but the companies and government dividing and conquering.


There are always the racists though and now with people being out of work the government and multinational corporations have the chance to cut contractors wages legally once again, one of the main reasons I started contract work was to make money, now I'm working like fuck loads more hours to earn 75% of what I used to 10 years ago, it's fucked, I hope there are going to be more call centres built because it's becoming less and less viable to work away from home in the UK and there are a LOT of travelling contractors gonna need work.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> one of the main reasons I started contract work was to make money, now I'm working like fuck loads more hours to earn 75% of what I used to 10 years ago, it's fucked


couldn't wait to be self employed to rake it in, now you're fucked.

d'ya think there's a lesson to be learnt there?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> I have worked in construction for years and this attitude is prevalent, most people I have met are not racist and have fought long and hard to prove that it is not about the foreign devil taking our jobs but the companies and government dividing and conquering.



Well that's the thing that makes me suspicious about the coverage here; it's all emphasising the "foreign workers" aspect, as if the foreignness is all it's about. Portraying people as backwards, prejudiced and not being able to cope with change when they complain is an ancient tactic. As you say I'm sure there are racists out there, and they're the ones who will be publicised because they're doing the bosses' job.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

er, Daily Star is reporting there is to be a 'march on parliament' next Tuesday, I wonder how the london left will respond to this one?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

discokermit said:


> couldn't wait to be self employed to rake it in, now you're fucked.
> 
> d'ya think there's a lesson to be learnt there?




piss off wankstain, I got made redundant and was sick of being on the dole, working away from home for months on end has it's own downside, try it, your kids may not recognise you next time they see you and your missus is with the local hard lad.

You are the problem mate, an idiot that thinks we should earn a lot less than we do because they are jealous of our earnings, well don't worry our highly skilled jobs have been farmed out to foreign workers who are now living that dream, minimum wage here we come, paying the bankers bonuses.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Snadge, ignore him, some people confuse getting a living wage with selling out, what do you think is going to happen, are you getting emails from fellow metal workers, etc?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Snadge, ignore him, some people confuse getting a living wage with selling out, what do you think is going to happen, are you getting emails from fellow metal workers, etc?



I have talked to a lot of fellow workers concerning this, a lot of my mates have given up on contract work, they seem to be drifting into low paid fiddle work as most of us refuse to claim benefits, not because we are not entitled to them but due to the fact that it is another ploy to make us accept "minimum wage" work in the trades that used to pay 3*times minimum wage, we didn't do an apprenticeship for nothing and our years in further education will not allow this, the working class is finished, we are superfluous to future growth, our skills can now be outsourced to a cheaper nation and call centre city beckons.

Good luck to my brothers, luckily I have a backup plan for money, many of my comrades don't, they are going to lose their houses and lives, once more the system has managed a landgrab of cheap freehold properties, sell a dream for home ownership and freedom from the state then put you on the scrapheap by reducing wages to an extent where paying for that home is impossible.

How else is the housing market going to recover other than a huge deficit of cheap repossessed homes to sell.

It is all making sense to me now and I don't care who calls me a conspiraloon.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Blmey, Snadge, I can remember when you were one of the optimists on P/P, but there are definitely tough times ahead and at the moment no one is really representing these people.


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

> A 29-year-old scaffolder at Grimsby told us Italian workers were making mistakes and ignoring safety.
> 
> He said: “We need to make a stand now.  This is not a racist protest. I’m happy to work hand-in-hand with foreign workers, but we are not getting a look in.
> 
> ...



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/67623/Brits-can-kiss-jobs-goodbye-/


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Blmey, Snadge, I can remember when you were one of the optimists on P/P, but there are definitely tough times ahead and at the moment no one is really representing these people.



ATM any dissent is being labelled as racism, the left has disowned the fight as they are toothless to fight it, so they side upon the racism angle and band us, if this continues it will become racist and allow the engineers of the situation profit via that.

It is a fight for all but too many people have been jealous of our earnings and freedom but we are the ones that forsake family and job stability for money and most of the advances that have come through this fight has been through OUR actions, we are staunt unionists but have never been represented by a union, they have made their careers on the back of us and careers they have, now representing the people we fight, minimum wage for all is their mantra, thus increasing the gap between rich and poor.

It is a fight for all this one but most will label it as racist.


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

just been reading about French Total refinery workers on strike back in the middle of December as part of a struggle for wage increases.

strike was called by the CGT union for the Total Normandy, Donges, Feyzin, La Mède, Grandpuits, Gargenville and Flanders refineries for December 12th.  no idea if its still ongoing though.

http://domikpcf.unblog.fr/2008/12/12/greve-dans-les-raffineries-francaises-total-a-lappel-de-la-cgt/


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 30, 2009)

No matter how you look at it the company were extremely tactless .they must have thought to them self this would cause problems but maybe that's what they wanted .of all areas business men are the most devious


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> If its any consolation to some of you I have a job in Italy and pay tax in the UK.



Nobody want to comment on me "stealing Italian jobs" and sending all my tax back to the UK?

Well?


----------



## isitme (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Nobody want to comment on me "stealing Italian jobs" and sending all my tax back to the UK?
> 
> Well?



what's your job?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

teaching


----------



## isitme (Jan 30, 2009)

how come you pay UK tax?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

s'complicated.

But probably pretty much the same way the Italians in the OP may pay tax in Italy.


----------



## isitme (Jan 30, 2009)

your job is a bit different to this tho because(I'm assuming) the main reason they are hiring you is that you are a native english speaker or an expert on something, whereas in this case it's just to pay your workforce less


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

isitme said:


> your job is a bit different to this tho because(I'm assuming) the main reason they are hiring you is that you are a native english speaker or an expert on something, whereas in this case it's just to pay your workforce less



Quite.

So the issue is nothing to with the nationality of the worker, but the attaempt by the bosses to pay lower wages.

Unfortunately this point looks like being utterly drowned in nationalism and protectionism.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> harsh words Snadge, having said that, I've scanned all the left wing blogs, etc, there is absolutely nothing on this two major days of walkouts, all illegal wildcats all one can see is about palestine. There seems to be a blanket refusal to acknowledge what is happening, I am genuinely interested to know why this is, is it too unpalatable?



This is really interesting. I've just checked the SWP and Socialist Party sites and absolutely nothing. Why? Do they not know how to respond? The BNP must creaming themselves.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

And the leading article on the BNP site http://bnp. org.uk/2009/01/massive-bnp-vote-in-newcastle/

This could turn very nasty.


----------



## isitme (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> So the issue is nothing to with the nationality of the worker, but the attaempt by the bosses to pay lower wages.
> 
> Unfortunately this point looks like being utterly drowned in nationalism and protectionism.



it's not in anyone in powers interest to publicise this point tho


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> And the leading article on the BNP site http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/massive-bnp-vote-in-newcastle/
> 
> This could turn very nasty.



Any chance you could break that link?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

isitme said:


> it's not in anyone in powers interest to publicise this point tho



No.

...and people ostensibly on the Left are falling for it hook, line and sinker.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

discokermit said:


> couldn't wait to be self employed to rake it in, now you're fucked.
> 
> d'ya think there's a lesson to be learnt there?



Don't be so stupid - if you can't see that following the early 80s period of mass unemployment capital practically forced certain workers (from dying trad industries largely) into self-employment in order to bear most of the risks and costs of the less profitable areas of their business then you're living in the past. Automatically viewing the self-employed as being the enemy in 2008 is dinosaur bollocks.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Yes an Italian based company working in the UK, using UK infastructure and importing staff at a lower rate to work in the UK, paying all taxes back to Italy (unless I have missed something with regards to paying UK tax). You can't see the problem with that? You can't see how things like this have a negative impact on local communities?



I'll just correct that:



TomPaine said:


> Yes an EU company working in the EU, using EU infastructure and using their own staff at their normal rate to work in the EU, paying all taxes to an EU state. You can't see the problem with that? You can't see how things like this have a negative impact on local communities?


 No, no problems there that I can see and I could see it having problems only in communities where xenophobia already is a problem




TomPaine said:


> How about those in the financial sector who are residents of Monaco, earn obscene salaries in the UK and ferry the money out to tax havens?



Monaco is not an EU member state (despite close ties with the EU and France) so this is irrelevant



TomPaine said:


> How about a UK company working in Africa importing British workers to work on the oil fields, and then exporting profit and tax back to the UK?



as far as I know there are no African states in the EU either so again irrelevant as far as this thread goes


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

Interesting to hear the coverage on Radio 4 this morning. Firstly they said that nobody from Labour, Conservative or the Lib Dems would put anybody up. Then they had some union offical from Unite. He started off by saying that he felt the company concerned where breaking the law because they had stated that they would not even consider using British labour but then went on to seemingly, and I concede that this may be my own interpretation, try and play down Gordon Browns speech at the conference in 2007 about British jobs for British workers. 

Then it cut to a report from Davos with the Beebs reporter doing a propaganda job for globalisation, once again my own interpretation.

I do wonder how this is now going to play out. Perhaps its my murkey mind working over time but after giving the story some coverage last night the 10'clock news on BBC 24 led with the story of the trouble in Paris and never mentioned this dispute what so ever. Which does make me wonder about who is setting the agenda over this story.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

derf said:


> The factory management didn't care about the legality of the workers as that was down to the agent and the factory had full denial. Not that any bugger seemed to be checking anyway.
> 
> As I said I'll leave the debate to others but that's what was happening there and there is a fair chance it's the same thing in this case.



No it isn't at all, read my other posts


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> No, no problems there that I can see and I could see it having problems only in communities where xenophobia already is a problem
> 
> as far as I know there are no African states in the EU either so again irrelevant as far as this thread goes




The EU seems to bring out the Little Englander in many people. When the Tories get back in we can happily kick all the foreigners out again.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Of course it's a scam, a legal one that only seems to be allowed in the UK.
> 
> The foreign workers are contracted to work a certain amount of hours, overtime payment doesn't come into it, Companies buy houses in the local towns and pile 5/6 into a house, they make a profit on the accommodation as well, alongside a tidy profit when the property is sold.
> 
> ...



Then this is a problem with UK national law, NOT the EU and certainly NOT any foreign worker trying to earn a living within the UK, maybe the unions should redirect their protests somewhat.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> The EU seems to bring out the Little Englander in many people. When the Tories get back in we can happily kick all the foreigners out again.


Being anti EU doesn't automatically mean you're nationalist.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> So the issue is nothing to with the nationality of the worker, but the attaempt by the bosses to pay lower wages.
> 
> Unfortunately this point looks like being utterly drowned in nationalism and protectionism.



Exactly and once more this has more to do with the UK's national laws rather than the EU or those "nasty" foreigners, people need to redirect their anger somewhere where it will actually bring about meaningful change


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Being anti EU doesn't automatically mean you're nationalist.



True, but reading some of the posts here it would seem the 2 sentiments go hand in hand for some.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

It's not the laws, it's the relentless search to squeeze the workers for more profit that's the problem, that's what's _behind_ the law.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's not the laws, it's the relentless search to squeeze the workers for more profit that's the problem, that's what's _behind_ the law.



That's true and employers will always strive for maximum work and minimum costs, the problem with the UK is that the laws as they stand seem to encourage and aid this and this is not something where people should be looking outside of the UK for a solution.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Exactly and once more this has more to do with the UK's national laws rather than the EU or those "nasty" foreigners, people need to redirect their anger somewhere where it will actually bring about meaningful change




This is what I dont understand. Here we have workers seeing jobs being denied to their fellow country men and so they react by taking industrial action which is then, in turn, supported by their fellow workers.

What else is left to them to do ? I would guess that the areas involved are solid 'safe' Labour seats and its perfectly obvious that Labour have no intention of doing anything to help them so what else are they meant to do ?

How else can they 'redirect' their anger ? What course of action is open to them beyond the one they have taken ?


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 30, 2009)

Phone in on Radio5 this morning is about 'British Jobs for British Workers"

They had 3 strikers on. First fella who rang pointed out they should be directing their anger at the bosses and the globalisation practice that allows this to happen. They reacted angrily and made much of the union line that the company have made a statement that they would not employ British workers under any circumstances.



Appeared like they been hand picked to represent the xenophobic line the media will likely take on the whole issue.


----------



## greenman (Jan 30, 2009)

This all needs to be put in context -
From my blog - Greenman's Occasional Organ



> Events in France over the last 48 hours show that whatever the ruling class of Europe thought they could get away with in terms of making the ordinary people pay for the profligacy, recklessness and irresponsibility of the bankers (and their tame government stooges) is now seriously being questioned. This is immensely heartening.
> After the people of Iceland showed what they felt and drove the neo-liberal government there from office - and Greek workers and farmers have used the example of their students and youth to go on the offensive against the capitalists - the general strike in France shows that the stakes are being raised. This crisis of capitalism gives immense opportunities, the likes of which have not been seen for a couple of generations, for a reshaping of the world into something where workers and ordinary people, not banks, corporations and corrupt politicians set the agenda.
> 
> The IMF report this week showed the scale of what is faced - and showed how in Britain this crisis is likely to be deeper, longer lasting and more consequential than elsewhere. Quite clearly this "recession" (the "D" word is still only hinted at) is said to be going to be worse than any of those of the 70s, 80s or 90s in Britain.
> ...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

I watched the coverage on BBC 24 last night and first line of the presenter was... go on... have a guess... yep, you guessed right "We haven't seen scenes like this since the 1970s"


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

Part2 said:


> Phone in on Radio5 this morning is about 'British Jobs for British Workers"
> 
> They had 3 strikers on. First fella who rang pointed out they should be directing their anger at the bosses and the globalisation practice that allows this to happen. They reacted angrily and made much of the union line that the company have made a statement that they would not employ British workers under any circumstances.
> 
> ...



So its xenophobic to think that its wrong for a company working in Britain to state that it will not employ British workers ? 

Or am I missing something ?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 30, 2009)

Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 this morning came straight from a report on this to talking to Robert Peston in Davos to say something along the lines of,

"Capitalism is human nature, we're naturally inclined to it..."


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> This is what I dont understand. Here we have workers seeing *jobs being denied to their fellow country men *and so they react by taking industrial action which is then, in turn, supported by their fellow workers.
> 
> What else is left to them to do ? I would guess that the areas involved are solid 'safe' Labour seats and its perfectly obvious that Labour have no intention of doing anything to help them so what else are they meant to do ?
> 
> How else can they 'redirect' their anger ? What course of action is open to them beyond the one they have taken ?



I've bolded the key bit.

As long as the issue is framed in a nationalist manner, then solutions posed will be nationalised ones (e.g. "British jobs for British workers") which of course are no solution at all as they miss the cause of the problem, which as Butchers pointed out above is the relentless drive by the bosses to get more labour for less cost. This is the essence of the class struggle and all the guff about nationality, cultural definitions of class and the whole raft of distractionary bollocks is exactly what _they _want.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

NC said that or Peston?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> So its xenophobic to think that its wrong for a company working in Britain to state that it will not employ British workers ?
> 
> Or am I missing something ?



Its irrelevant


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

800 have walked out in Grangemouth:



> Kenny Smith is one worker who has walked out at Grangemouth. He said they were not objecting to foreign workers being used.
> 
> He explained: "The objection is foreign companies clearly stating they will not start British workers on the job. We have no problems working with foreigners of any kind - we have Poles working here recently with us."


----------



## newbie (Jan 30, 2009)

the flipside of this is that with the £-€ being what it is British skills are now much cheaper in Europe than previously- I know a number of high skill/high fee workers who are travelling to work abroad.

tbh it seems odd that this is happening now, given that the Italian firm was more competitive a few months ago.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Its irrelevant




Why ? 

Now apologies if I come accross as being a bit dumb but I get confused by the British left. If I read them rightly then they dont like globalisation ? Yet seem to be saying that this issue of British workers being denied jobs in this country is irrelevant because its all a wider global struggle ? A sort of socialst globalisation ?

Or have I the wrong end of the stick ? 

Surely local jobs for local people is a fundamental demand for the anti-globalisation movement ?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> So its xenophobic to think that its wrong for a company working in Britain to state that it will not employ British workers ?
> 
> Or am I missing something ?



Why should they? It's an Italian company working on a fixed term contract, what are they supposed to do sack all their Italian employees and take on British? Talk about International workers' unity, FFS!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

It seems to be spreading all over the place.

I thought the left here would be jumping up and down with joy now that the workers have gone out on strike against neo-liberalism

Personally, I'm quite sympathetic to their cause - bringing in 400 workers from Italy to do a job that local labour is quite capable of is going to stir serious resentment up.

Those on strike must have come to the conclusion (with ample justification) that they will be replaced tomorrow by labour that can be housed in barrack-style housing on a river


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

The Italian workers are being exploited as much as the British ones. It would be great if they walked out and stood with demonstrators , but that 's unlikely to happen.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Personally, I'm quite sympathetic to their cause - bringing in 400 workers from Italy to do a job that local labour is quite capable of is going to stir serious resentment up.
> 
> Those on strike must have come to the conclusion (with ample justification) that they will be replaced tomorrow by labour that can be housed in barrack-style housing on a river



It's not though, an Italian company has won a contract within the EU and is carrying out that contract with its own labour force which it is perfectly entitled to do.

If this is a problem maybe you should be questioning the reasons why it is so that companies from other EU states are more competative than those within the UK.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> The Italian workers are being exploited as much as the British ones. It would be great if they walked out and stood with demonstrators , but that 's unlikely to happen.



I doubt it, they are probably receiving the same if not more than what they would be earning in Italy, or have you been speaking with the Italian workers?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> Why ?
> 
> Now apologies if I come accross as being a bit dumb but I get confused by the British left. If I read them rightly then they dont like globalisation ? Yet seem to be saying that this issue of British workers being denied jobs in this country is irrelevant because its all a wider global struggle ? A sort of socialst globalisation ?
> 
> ...



Because if you stick with "local jobs with local people"one this will very easily be manipulated into "British jobs for British workers" and is an argument that plays into the hands of th right. who have no interest in taking the side of the worker.

Secondly its an argument where the solution is easy. Local workers work for competitive (lower) wages.

If we continue to frame the argument this way. We _will_ lose.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It seems to be spreading all over the place.



I know. When I lived in Germany there were thousands of British builders undercutting the Germans with their shoddy workmanship.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> It's not though, an Italian company has won a contract within the EU and is carrying out that contract with its own labour force which it is perfectly entitled to do.
> 
> If this is a problem maybe you should be questioning the reasons why it is so that companies from other EU states are more competative than those within the UK.



I don't know. Like all migrant labour they live in poor housing conditions for less pay I presume.

Your basis of your argument is ridiculous "perfectly entitled to do" - it doesn't make it right.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> It's not though, an Italian company has won a contract within the EU and is carrying out that contract with its own labour force which it is perfectly entitled to do.
> 
> If this is a problem maybe you should be questioning the reasons why it is so that companies from other EU states are more competative than those within the UK.



This is where the EU liberal economic system falls down. It's not nationalist to expect people to have a right to work near to where they live. That is a basic right and workers should not expect to travel thousands of miles to take jobs from people who actually live in those areas, because they are cheaper labour. To argue that view is nationalist is wrong and is essentially a free market argument in favour of exploiting workers.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

Also as well - don't forget this one... this Italian / Portuguese labour is now _scab labour_...


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> This is where the EU liberal economic system falls down. It's not nationalist to expect people to have a right to work near to where they live. That is a basic right and workers should not expect to travel thousands of miles to take jobs from people who actually live in those areas, because they are cheaper labour. To argue that view is nationalist is wrong and is essentially a free market argument in favour of exploiting workers.



What about commuters in Britain? How local is local?

Cornish miners undercut Welsh slate miners in the 19th c.


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

> Jerry Hicks a candidate in the forthcoming election for general secretary at Unite, sustained a fractured leg at a protest at the Staythorpe power station.
> 
> He said: “This should come as no surprise to anyone. The employers have deliberately and actively been looking for ways to exploit cheap labour while covering their eyes and ears to the growing rage of discontent and ignoring all the warning signs, it’s outrageous.”



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5616686.ece


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

where to said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5616686.ece





> But the British Chambers of Commerce warned that bringing in foreign based labour was likely to grow. David Frost, director general, said: “While I can understand the concerns about jobs, this issue is going to grow and grow because it is global capital and labour and it is not going to go away.”



A classic defence of neo-liberalism


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> What about commuters in Britain? How local is local?
> 
> Cornish miners undercut Welsh slate miners in the 19th c.



Commuters argument is not the same because they are not taking jobs at the expense of others. And they are not being flown in from 1000's of miles to live 6 to a room on some sort of prison ship. You seem to be arguing in favour of neo liberal economics, basically the freedom of companies to employ the cheapest labour at any cost.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> This is where the EU liberal economic system falls down. It's not nationalist to expect people to have a right to work near to where they live. That is a basic right and workers should not expect to travel thousands of miles to take jobs from people who actually live in those areas, because they are cheaper labour. To argue that view is nationalist is wrong and is essentially a free market argument in favour of exploiting workers.



Not really, it's where the notion of Europe as a set of separate countries comes into play. This kind of migratory labour is commonplace in the US, because it's seen as a single entity by it's populace. Legally these Italian workers are identical to UK labour - they _are not foreigners_ - they're just from a different state in Europe who speak a different language. As such this in a bizarre way is saying that they are just workers same as the Brits.

This is the essential problem that I've noticed with union response to European labour, going back to the 1990s and the first wave of recruitment agencies across EU/Eastern Europe but no unions out there. This desire to still see the EU as completely separate nations is bollocks, and it's this short sightedness which is catching up with people. The irony being that as cap globalises, it should also be _easier_ to attain the kind of internationalism that any form of workers' struggle requires and yet, despite this being leftist doctrine it's been a completely missed opportunity for 20 years, and you're now left with pitiful economic nationalism and these tired arguments about how wanting to protect local jobs from 'foreigners' from Europe, when their legal status effectively makes them no different from 'local' workers...


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> *This is where the EU liberal economic system falls down. It's not nationalist to expect people to have a right to work near to where they live. *That is a basic right and workers should not expect to travel thousands of miles to take jobs from people who actually live in those areas, because they are cheaper labour. To argue that view is nationalist is wrong and is essentially a free market argument in favour of exploiting workers.



Since when has this been a "basic right"? 

Only thing I could find was:



> Article 23.
> (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
> (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
> (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
> (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.



http://un.org/Overview/rights.html

Now if that was applied by the UK governement and employers for ALL workers within the UK maybe this wouldnt be such a problem.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really, it's where the notion of Europe as a set of separate countries comes into play. This kind of migratory labour is commonplace in the US, because it's seen as a single entity by it's populace. Legally these Italian workers are identical to UK labour - they _are not foreigners_ - they're just from a different state in Europe who speak a different language. As such this in a bizarre way is saying that they are just workers same as the Brits.
> 
> This is the essential problem that I've noticed with union response to European labour, going back to the 1990s and the first wave of recruitment agencies across EU/Eastern Europe but no unions out there. This desire to still see the EU as completely separate nations is bollocks, and it's this short sightedness which is catching up with people. The irony being that as cap globalises, it should also be _easier_ to attain the kind of internationalism that any form of workers' struggle requires and yet, despite this being leftist doctrine it's been a completely missed opportunity for 20 years, and you're now left with pitiful economic nationalism and these tired arguments about how wanting to protect local jobs from 'foreigners' from Europe, when their legal status effectively makes them no different from 'local' workers...



Well said, sir.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Also as well - don't forget this one... this Italian / Portuguese labour is now _scab labour_...



No they're not, they're working on a fixed term construction contract seperate from the normal work of the refinery, IF the workers were taking the jobs of those permenently employed there this might be the case. Sounds like some here are really falling for the good old fashioned "divide and rule".


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really, it's where the notion of Europe as a set of separate countries comes into play. This kind of migratory labour is commonplace in the US, because it's seen as a single entity by it's populace. Legally these Italian workers are identical to UK labour - they _are not foreigners_ - they're just from a different state in Europe who speak a different language. As such this in a bizarre way is saying that *they are just workers same as the Brits*.



Exactly and if their rights as workers are being abused this is due to UK national laws NOT the EU.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Nobody want to comment on me "stealing Italian jobs" and sending all my tax back to the UK?
> 
> Well?


 
You working for an Italian or UK registered company..??

If its an Italian company they will be paying an taxation due to the Italian government. All this has come about because of the UK government has allowed foreign companies to buy up UK companies. It will only get worse. Bank of Santander own Abbey. Lets say they experience financial problems back in Spain. Where do you think they will make an staffing cuts, in the UK or Spain..??


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

If we continue to frame this in terms of nationality etc rather than bosses trying to set workers against worker in order to lower rates and conditions we're going nowhere.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> You working for an Italian or UK registered company..??
> 
> If its an Italian company they will be paying an taxation due to the Italian government.



Only if he's normally resident in Italy whether the company is UK, Italy or anywhere else in the EU based is irrelevant. The Italians will be paying tax in Italy because they will be resident in Italy and they are on a temporary contract within the EU. No problem


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

BA^^^My point, but more succintly put.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> If we continue to frame this in terms of nationality etc rather than bosses trying to set workers against worker in order to lower rates and conditions we're going nowhere.



This I agree with, look to the root cause of this problem, not the symptoms.


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

300 have walked out in Warrington now according to radio5.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> This I agree with, look to the root cause of this problem, not the symptoms.



I agree but then do you support the demonstrations? Should the Italian workers be encouraged to join them and direct the anger against the employers?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> If we continue to frame this in terms of nationality etc rather than bosses trying to set workers against worker in order to lower rates and conditions we're going nowhere.



I keep saying this...


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> I agree but then do you support the demonstrations? Should the Italian workers be encouraged to join them and direct the anger against the employers?



Not in the form they are taking ie the anger being directed at the Italian workers, I'm sure the protesters have managed to allienate their fellow workers to the point that they wouldn't join them anyway even if they felt they were being discriminated against.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Only if he's normally resident in Italy whether the company is UK, Italy or anywhere else in the EU based is irrelevant. The Italians will be paying tax in Italy because they will be resident in Italy and they are on a temporary contract within the EU. No problem



Quite. 

Temp contract with a UK company in Italy.

Just like the Italians above.


----------



## TwoTimer (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> It's not though, an Italian company has won a contract within the EU and is carrying out that contract with its own labour force which it is perfectly entitled to do.
> 
> If this is a problem maybe you should be questioning the reasons why it is so that companies from other EU states are more competative than those within the UK.



...which would then drag onto worldwide equality. I'm sure we could find workers for even less outside of the EU? Do you think we should beat ourselves up over why Africa is more competitive that the EU. Something tells me that you're answer is "Yes."

Britain can't change the world but she can make her own laws and life would be a lot easier if we just pulled out of the fucking EU.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Commuters argument is not the same because they are not taking jobs at the expense of others. And they are not being flown in from 1000's of miles to live 6 to a room on some sort of prison ship. You seem to be arguing in favour of neo liberal economics, basically the freedom of companies to employ the cheapest labour at any cost.



How is it different?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

There seems to be a lot of frightening ignorance about EU law here


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> I agree but then do you support the demonstrations? Should the Italian workers be encouraged to join them and direct the anger against the employers?



Of course the Italians should be encouraged to come out on strike - if they're earning less than UK workers in Italy, and have been bought over for this purpose, then any action they take here to secure higher wages will benefit them at home too.

But you need to stop thinking of this in national terms - they're part of the same legal entity as you and I, the same 'nation' and we should all behave as such.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> ...which would then drag onto worldwide equality. I'm sure we could find workers for even less outside of the EU? Do you think we should beat ourselves up over why Africa is more competitive that the EU. Something tells me that you're answer is "Yes."
> 
> Britain can't change the world but she can make her own laws and life would be a lot easier if we just pulled out of the fucking EU.



Jesus H fucking Christ.


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> So its xenophobic to think that its wrong for a company working in Britain to state that it will not employ British workers ?
> 
> Or am I missing something ?




The point I was making is it appears (to me) that the media will rather portray this as an issue of foreign workers rather than an issue of greed on the part of company bosses.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

Can someone who knows what they are talking about clarify a couple of things for me:

Do the rules for foreign workers doing this kind of contract work vary significantly from one EU state to the other, or not? (eg. is it any more difficult for a UK worker to do contract work in Italy, than it is for an Italian to do similar work here?)

Is there anything stopping UK workers taking the same UK contract work as these foreign workers are taking, under the same terms and pay?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> ...which would then drag onto worldwide equality.



and this is a bad thing? 



TwoTimer said:


> I'm sure we could find workers for even less outside of the EU?


quite possibly but you are then talking about a way different legal framework


TwoTimer said:


> Do you think we should beat ourselves up over why Africa is more competitive that the EU. Something tells me that you're answer is "Yes."


Is Africa more competative?


TwoTimer said:


> Britain can't change the world but she can make her own laws and life would be a lot easier if we just pulled out of the fucking EU.



If you would be happy with laws made in the UK without the balancing framework that the EU has provided then fill yer boots and vote for the UKIP


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> No they're not, they're working on a fixed term construction contract seperate from the normal work of the refinery, IF the workers were taking the jobs of those permenently employed there this might be the case. Sounds like some here are really falling for the good old fashioned "divide and rule".



They are crossing the picket line...


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

I fully understand the bits about EU law and so on and accept the idea that the wider struggle is about the system that encourages employees to seek the cheapest labour to maximise profits.

But you are a man with a family to support and you see cheaper labour being bought in to do a job that you can do. Not only that but you are not even being offered a chance to do that job. 

What are you meant to do ? How can you express your disquiet at this ? What avenues are open to you ? Who is willing to listen to your worries about not being able to buy your kids birthday presents ( emotive I accept but the sort of every day concern that many people have ) ? Who does represent you ?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> So its xenophobic to think that its wrong for a company working in Britain to state that it will not employ British workers ?
> 
> Or am I missing something ?



There may well be something against them specifically saying they won't recruit Brits in competition or Labour law, but there may be technical reasons for only employing existing staff - technical knowledge, knowledge of company methodolgy that would take time to train a local workforce in.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Errrr.... you live in the UK, yes?
> 
> If so, I suspect you certainly will start to give a shit where tax revenues go when public spending has to be slashed due to the recession and a sharp decrease in tax receipts: when rubbish starts piling up in the streets, schools have to close one day a week, NHS budgets are slashed and you cannot get an appointment with your doctor, government has to cut welfare payments, crime goes through the roof, social services contract massively and there is no public money to repair infrastructure so it gets sold off to foreign corporations who milk you blind.
> 
> And you then lose your job.


Public spending never "has" to be slashed, there's always some fucking excuse.

In any case, I seriously doubt that the tiny amount of tax revenue that would be generated by a few hundred foreign manual labourers is going to have a signifigant impact on a situation where public spending has supposedly been slashed to the point where rubbish is piling up in the streets.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Can someone who knows what they are talking about clarify a couple of things for me:
> 
> Do the rules for foreign workers doing this kind of contract work vary significantly from one EU state to the other, or not? (eg. is it any more difficult for a UK worker to do contract work in Italy, than it is for an Italian to do similar work here?)
> 
> Is there anything stopping UK workers taking the same UK contract work as these foreign workers are taking, under the same terms and pay?



It is exactly the same an EU citizen has the right to work and live in any EU state and pay taxes in the country he/she is normally resident in (although I believe there are a couple of bilateral agreements that affect this slightly)

There is absolutely nothing stopping an individual UK worker or a UK company working in other states within the EU.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Incidentally, does anyone have proof that these guys will be earning less than their UK equivalents for this work?


----------



## strummerville (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Commuters argument is not the same because *the commuters* are not taking jobs at the expense of others. *And they are not being flown in from 1000's of miles to live 6 to a room on some sort of prison ship.* You seem to be arguing in favour of neo liberal economics, basically the freedom of companies to employ the cheapest labour at any cost.





chilango said:


> How is it different?



To me it's not a nationalist argument. If I am working somewhere and then told I am unable to work because they can someone else to do the same job for far less money than i was earning then i would be pissed off. It doesn't matter where those people came from, it's still wrong. Unless you believe in the idea of a completely unfettered free market.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> There may well be something against them specifically saying they won't recruit Brits in competition or Labour law, but there may be technical reasons for only employing existing staff - technical knowledge, knowledge of company methodolgy that would take time to train a local workforce in.




Garbage, it is about cheaper labour, I have worked on many FGD plants and have vast experience with these types of units as have my fellow workers, this FGD  is the Italians company's fist attempt using AMEC designs.

It is about cheaper labour and the drive towards minimum wage for ALL manual workers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Garbage, it is about cheaper labour, I have worked on many FGD plants and have vast experience with these types of units as have my fellow workers, this FGD  is the Italians company's fist attempt using AMEC designs.
> 
> It is about cheaper labour and the drive towards minimum wage for ALL manual workers.



Proof?


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> Temp contract with a UK company in Italy.
> 
> Just like the Italians above.


 
I would say that you are employed in Italy because you have a certain skill set that is not available from within the local populous. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 
In the case of the current industrial action I would imagine that the skills these Italian workers have are readily available from UK workers. Therefore Total should have given the contract to a UK company. If a UK company cannot fulfill the requirements of Total (a French company) it should have been an express condition of the contract that UK workers be employed.

Do you honestly think that a contract in any EU country would have gone to a company that then imported workers from another EU country to complete the contract?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> To me it's not a nationalist argument. If I am working somewhere and then told I am unable to work because they can someone else to do the same job for far less money than i was earning then i would be pissed off. It doesn't matter where those people came from, it's still wrong. Unless you believe in the idea of a completely unfettered free market.



It is nationalistic in so far as the EU (as has already been stated), cannot be seen as a collection of individual states I think an unfettered free market is a worthwhile aim yes, I have worked within the EU since 91 and I have experienced the hard times with the good times and I still support the concept.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> It is exactly the same an EU citizen has the right to work and live in any EU state and pay taxes in the country he/she is normally resident in (although I believe there are a couple of bilateral agreements that affect this slightly)
> 
> There is absolutely nothing stopping an individual UK worker or a UK company working in other states within the EU.



And is there any reason why a UK worker can't do the same contract work that the foreign workers are taking on, under the same pay and terms? (Other than a particular company deciding they don't want UK workers?)


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

strummerville said:


> To me it's not a nationalist argument. If I am working somewhere and then told I am unable to work because they can someone else to do the same job for far less money than i was earning then i would be pissed off. *It doesn't matter where those people came from, it's still wrong. *Unless you believe in the idea of a completely unfettered free market.



Bolded the key bit.

EXACTLY.

It has nothing to do with their nationality at all.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> I would say that you are employed in Italy because you have a certain skill set that is not available from within the local populous. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.



This only applies to non-EU foreign workers, as an EU citizen he, you, the Italians and I have the right to work in all EU states regardless.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> I would say that you are employed in Italy because you have a certain skill set that is not available from within the local populous. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
> In the case of the current industrial action I would imagine that the skills these Italian workers have are readily available from UK workers. Therefore Total should have given the contract to a UK company. If a UK company cannot fulfill the requirements of Total (a French company) it should have been an express condition of the contract that UK workers be employed.



You really don't get it do you? Chilango is working in Italy because he applied for the job and got it, the same way he could apply for a job in the UK. It's fuck all to do with local labour pools on a national level. Since 1992 the whole of Europe is a single labour market.

That you don't get this is part of the problem.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> And is there any reason why a UK worker can't do the same contract work that the foreign workers are taking on, under the same pay and terms? (Other than a particular company deciding they don't want UK workers?)



no but for whatever reason the contract was awarded to the Italian company, cést la vie


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> I would say that you are employed in Italy because you have a certain skill set that is not available from within the local populous. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. In the case of the current industrial action I would imagine that the skills these Italian workers have are readily available from UK workers.



I'm not sure that I do. 

But for whatever reason I'm seen as preferable to local labour.

Just as the Italians are seen as preferable to local labour in the case above.



> Therefore Total should have given the contract to a UK company. If a UK company cannot fulfill the requirements of Total (a French company) it should have been an express condition of the contract that UK workers be employed.



Why?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Proof?



what do you mean proof?

Do a search on FGD's ( Flue Gas Desulpherisation Plant) there have been quite a few built around the world, mainly of AMEC or FLS Milijo design, both of whom I have worked for.

What proof do you want that the foreign workers are being paid less than would be paid to a blue book worker from the UK, the proof is in the pudding and the accommodation that is set up for them, the companies are using the UK laws to circumnavigate blue book agreements, this is WELL known and has been going on for years.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> I would say that you are employed in Italy because you have a certain skill set that is not available from within the local populous. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
> In the case of the current industrial action I would imagine that the skills these Italian workers have are readily available from UK workers. Therefore Total should have given the contract to a UK company. If a UK company cannot fulfill the requirements of Total (a French company) it should have been an express condition of the contract that UK workers be employed.



But if the Italian workers are willing to work for less than UK workers (if this is in fact the case) then why should Total be expected to go for the more expensive option? They are operating in a competitive market - they aren't a charity.

It seems to me that if you want to protect existing high(er) rates of pay you either have to introduce a higher minimum wage UK-wide, or the unions have to start trying to operate on an EU-wide basis, although I'm not quite sure how that would work. You'd have to get workers to sign up to a union whose principle was that you don't take jobs for less than the current going rate in a specific geographical area, or something like that, surely.

Or you pull out of the EU and make laws against foreign workers taking jobs in the UK.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

The workers aren't a charity either - why should be expected to swallow possible losses if the company won't? So you get class struggle - like this. It's that simple.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The workers aren't a charity either - why should be expected to swallow possible losses if the company won't? So you get class struggle - like this. It's that simple.



Because that's what the current legal set-up allows.

If you think the legal/political set-up is flawed (which I'm sure you do) then you should be complaining about EU/UK government policy, not the companies that operate within the law.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> what do you mean proof?
> 
> Do a search on FGD's ( Flue Gas Desulpherisation Plant) there have been quite a few built around the world, mainly of AMEC or FLS Milijo design, both of whom I have worked for.
> 
> What proof do you want that the foreign workers are being paid less than would be paid to a blue book worker from the UK, the proof is in the pudding and the accommodation that is set up for them, the companies are using the UK laws to circumnavigate blue book agreements, this is WELL known and has been going on for years.



I'd want to see actual proof that these guys are earning less, rather than the speculation you're offering. You know, a payslip, or copy of their contracts detailing their earnings. You know, _proof_, evidence, paperwork.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The workers aren't a charity either - why should be expected to swallow possible losses if the company won't? So you get class struggle - like this. It's that simple.



Do you reckon the Italian workers are in the wrong because they are accepting  non-unionised jobs?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> or the unions have to start trying to operate on an EU-wide basis, although I'm not quite sure how that would work.



The unions should have been doing this 20 years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Because that's what the current legal set-up allows.
> 
> If you think the legal/political set-up is flawed (which I'm sure you do) then you should be complaining about EU/UK government policy, not the companies that operate within the law.



No thanks, i think it's far more effective to act like this - clearly those who are most effected by it do too.

'should' - do me a favour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Do you reckon the Italian workers are in the wrong because they are accepting  non-unionised jobs?



That sort of response is not on my radar. The bosses trying to use cheap labour to undermine existing rates and condtions are 'in the wrong'  - whether that's legal or not.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> But if the Italian workers are willing to work for less than UK workers (if this is in fact the case) then why should Total be expected to go for the more expensive option? They are operating in a competitive market - they aren't a charity.
> 
> It seems to me that if you want to protect existing high(er) rates of pay you either have to introduce a higher minimum wage UK-wide, or the unions have to start trying to operate on an EU-wide basis, although I'm not quite sure how that would work. You'd have to get workers to sign up to a union whose principle was that you don't take jobs for less than the current going rate in a specific geographical area, or something like that, surely.
> 
> Or you pull out of the EU and make laws against foreign workers taking jobs in the UK.



There are already wage structures in place for construction workers, they are being circumnavigated by using foreign labour.


FFS all I can see on here is wankers saying that we should work for less, "to be competitive."

How many more times must my pay reduce for me to work, it has been steadily reduced for the past 15 years, now some construction workers are working 14hrs 7 days a week with no overtime bonuses and no expenses just to get a decent wage all due to the drip, drip of competitiveness.

The result of this being that UK workers will probably be allowed to work on these contracts BUT at the same rate of pay as the cheaper workers and with no expenses, halfing their wages once again, where will it stop.

As I said before, bring on the fucking call centres.

British contractors are fucked, a huge skill set destined to sell shit over the phone.


----------



## zoltan (Jan 30, 2009)

I too would like to see what the wages are before making a decision on  this - Unions are hardly new to xenophobic  shit stiirring in the past and & to focus on the Italian workers is a bit iffy ( Italian "workers" - do Foreign workers count for less than UK workers ? - still being exploited and having to live in fuckin linconshire in barracks or whatever to makie a living is hardly the high life )


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> That sort of response is not on my radar. The bosses trying to use cheap labour to undermine existing rates and condtions are 'in the wrong' - whether that's legal or not.


 
This - this is not about Italian workers it is about ensuring that UK workers are able to work to support themselves, their familes and their local communities. This is not demonising or persecuting these Italians, it is common sense. If the UK workers lose their jobs it will be the UK who will be supporting them and their families.

Would we see the same in any other EU country..?? No, they would not import a British workforce for this kind of contract, it would be a matter of national pride for the contract to be awarded to a company from their own country.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> FFS all I can see on here is wankers saying that we should work for less, "to be competitive."



It's not a matter of "should" - it's an inevitable result of opening up a labour market to workers who, for whatever reason, are prepared to work for less.

What is your proposed solution, to stop this happening?


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> British contractors are fucked, a huge skill set destined to sell shit over the phone.


 
And once that skill set is lost you do not get them back, they are gone forever. When these skills are gone who will train the future generation..??


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

zoltan said:


> I too would like to see what the wages are before making a decision on  this - Unions are hardly new to xenophobic  shit stiirring in the past and & to focus on the Italian workers is a bit iffy ( Italian "workers" - do Foreign workers count for less than UK workers ? - still being exploited and having to live in fuckin linconshire in barracks or whatever to makie a living is hardly the high life )



Thing is are they being exploited by living in barracks? I lived in caravans whilst on contracts in different parts of Germany and I loved it mainly due to the fact that I was still being paid money for hotel accomodation without knowing their exact pay and conditions to say they are being exploited is just speculation.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> This - this is not about Italian workers it is about ensuring that UK workers are able to work to support themselves, their familes and their local communities. This is not demonising or persecuting these Italians, it is common sense. If the UK workers lose their jobs it will be the UK who will be supporting them and their families.
> 
> Would we see the same in any other EU country..?? No, they would not import a British workforce for this kind of contract, it would be a matter of national pride for the contract to be awarded to a company from their own country.



Essentially you are saying you want the inequality of wealth between the UK and other nations to continue, because it is in the interest of UK residents.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> I'd want to see actual proof that these guys are earning less, rather than the speculation you're offering. You know, a payslip, or copy of their contracts detailing their earnings. You know, _proof_, evidence, paperwork.



What so some Italian bod is going to give me a payslip, don't be stupid.

Is the company going to give me a copy of a contract, once again don't be stupid

Use some common sense instead, if they are being paid the blue book rate why go to the expense of housing them in specially transited barges on the river, if they were on blue book rate they would receive daily lodging expenses at the correct rate of £29.


As in Staythorpe, who's foreign workers are also housed on site ( Polish and Spanish) it has been revealed to the strikers that the company employing is NOT subject to the blue book agreement.


----------



## zoltan (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> This - this is not about Italian workers it is about ensuring that UK workers are able to work to support themselves, their familes and their local communities. This is not demonising or persecuting these Italians, it is common sense. If the UK workers lose their jobs it will be the UK who will be supporting them and their families.
> 
> Would we see the same in any other EU country..?? No, they would not import a British workforce for this kind of contract, it would be a matter of national pride for the contract to be awarded to a company from their own country.



Ship repair contracts in the baltic german ports & much of Holland is based in imported Polish expertise & labour -  often  more highly qualified & experienced than their local counterparts - Paid german level wages IIRC, but their productivity is much greater


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Thing is are they being exploited by living in barracks? I lived in caravans whilst on contracts in different parts of Germany and I loved it mainly due to the fact that I was still being paid money for hotel accomodation without knowing their exact pay and conditions to say they are being exploited is just speculation.



LOL yes they are, they do not receive blue book agreed pay because accommodation is provided, it is the "get out clause" if you will.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Essentially you are saying you want the inequality of wealth between the UK and other nations to continue, because it is in the interest of UK residents.


 
No what I am saying is that I want these high end contracts together with the high skill jobs they create to go to UK companies that employ UK workers, both of which will pay tax to the UK treasury. If that makes me some BNP wannabe in your mind that's your problem.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

So no, you don't have any actual proof, just hearsay and assumption.


----------



## Zachor (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> That sort of response is not on my radar. The bosses trying to use cheap labour to undermine existing rates and condtions are 'in the wrong'  - whether that's legal or not.



Agree there.  Its not as if you have workers volunatarily going to the companies and saying 'I'll do that job for you better and cheaper than this other guy' which is understandable natural competition.  This is s concerted effort by extremely wealthy companies to drive down wages involuntarily.  

To be frank at a time of racial, religious and social tension the last thing we need to happen is companies doing shit like this.  Its like handing the fash seats in councils and maybe parliament on a plate.  Apart from that its wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> No what I am saying is that I want these high end contracts together with the high skill jobs they create to go to UK companies that employ UK workers, both of which will pay tax to the UK treasury. If that makes me some BNP wannabe in your mind that's your problem.



You want an end to the free labour market within the EU, is what you are saying.

It doesn't really make you a BNP wannabe - more of a UKIP wannabe, I would say.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> So no, you don't have any actual proof, just hearsay and assumption.



I have seen a Polish Babcocks welders payslip at Longannet Power Station last year with his £5 per hour deduction for accommodation on a lower rate than would be paid to me.

No he wouldn't give it to me and he was very happy with that amount with all his food and lodging paid for.

If it is not true, why go to the expense of towing barges up the river for them to stay on, why build contractor camps on site for them to live in?







Get real, this IS happening and there IS going to be trouble.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Don't you get it? I'm not saying it's true or untrue, what I'm asking is that someone provide some proof of the case being stated.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Don't you get it? I'm not saying it's true or untrue, what I'm asking is that someone provide some proof of the case being stated.





I give up.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

What, you give up because someone is asking for proof that these Italians are being paid less than they should be before offering overall support? That I'm supposed to take something on _trust_?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

> The Staythorpe Project has defined rates of pay under a national agreement for the engineering construction industry (NAECI) so there will be no savings on employment costs.



There is the proof and how they can lie and say there will be NO saving is beyond me.






> Employers and trade unions alike are well aware of the issues that took place at Cottam Power Station where labour was utilised from Hungary and it was discovered that those Hungarian workers were being paid well under the rates of the NAECI National Agreement. This understandably caused outrage with the UK employees on that site and resulted in stoppages of work to ensure that the Hungarian workers were paid the same rates.




http://www.amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=9069


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> What, you give up because someone is asking for proof that these Italians are being paid less than they should be before offering overall support? That I'm supposed to take something on _trust_?



Assuming they _are_ being paid less, do you feel that the UK workers are justified in taking action? How do you think the situation should be resolved?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Assuming they _are_ being paid less, do you feel that the UK workers are justified in taking action? How do you think the situation should be resolved?



Yes I do, and that action should include involving the Italians by making the point that they are being underpaid for the work based on UK guidelines for the work. 

I have no preference for how the situation should be resolved.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> http://www.amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=9069



Again, that's _not this site_ or relevant to this situation, is it? Surely AMICUS will be able to provide proof of these assertions?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Again, that's _not this site_ or relevant to this situation, is it? Surely AMICUS will be able to provide proof of these assertions?



Jesus wept, this is current, Staythorpe is also being picketed, it is TOTALLY relevant.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Don't you get it, still? Had anyone got any actual evidence of pay being undercut?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Yes I do, and that action should include involving the Italians by making the point that they are being underpaid for the work based on UK guidelines for the work.



But why would the Italians want to join demands calling for this, if the likely result would be that it would no longer be in the interests of the employers to employ them, and they would have to return to Italy to be paid even less?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Don't you get it, still? Had anyone got any actual evidence of pay being undercut?





> The Staythorpe Project has defined rates of pay under a national agreement for the engineering construction industry (NAECI)




There are several levels on the NAECI pay grades, they are paying foreign workers  cat4 now which is agricultural worker so not 'technically" breaking the agreement, the pay should be cat1 and cat2 for all workers on a new steel project.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> But why would the Italians want to join demands calling for this, if the likely result would be that it would no longer be in the interests of the employers to employ them, and they would have to return to Italy to be paid even less?



That's an argument for solidarity the UK workers have to make with their Italian bothers, not me.



> Does that mean they pay the agreed rate or less?



You tell me. You're the one making the statement about them uncercutting local workers.

Look, I don't doubt that they are being paid less, what I'd like to see is some actual evidence of this, something no one seems able to provide.

E2a - just seen your edit, fine and you know that they're being paid cat4 how?


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Chilango says some on the left on here, have 'swallowed it hook line and sinker', is this a smear

What people like Durruti, and myself and Baldwin(am i endorsing him!) and recently Snadge have been saying is that you can't have the sort of breackneck globalisation that the UK has seen, one of the most open economies in thhe world without dislocation. Something like this was predictable here in the UK, particualrly as the labour movement and the left are so weak here. The left is disconnected fom the fears and desires of most working class people, i remember being amazed when there were some construction workers on the Lebanon demo here, turns out they were Polish! The earlier warning was the Petrol Dispute, when wildcats with no organic links to the wider but diminished labour movement broke out. One has to wonder how this will pan out?, it is only going to get bigger and there really doesn't seem to an effective response from progressives, the left, etc. Calling them xenophobes, nationalists, etc, won't work, and the BNP seem to be more welcome on the picket lines than anyone else, its not a good situation and people may get physically hurt, some of the areas involved have been 'seething with resentment for years'

no answers here.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> You are far to kind to the scum who are striking
> 
> Theirs is an openly racist call for british jobs for british workers. As internationalists, we should not give a fig if it is so called british or so called foreign workers are in a particlau job. If jobs on offer were given to foreigners, so what? If this action suceeds, its open season for a general pogrom against foreign workers, with employers being put under pressure to sack foreign workers in favour of british ones. This is where this road leads
> 
> ...




Usual level of sophistication from Jim Page and he wonders why the Far Right are growing!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

1. TL, you're dealing with a situaiton that's been in existance since 1992 when the European Single Market came into force, meaning that anyone in an EU country could work in any other without a visa

2. There was no uniion push in the 1990s to expand their sphere of influence into other countries, of linking up with European unions to ensure that there was the possibility of EU wide best practice for all workers.

3. The fact that no one in the UK labour movement, nor it seems a huge chunk of people on Urban, have recognised this in nearly 20 years is no ones fault but their own. Here's a simple fact - the bosses have managed to pit workers against workers who exist in the same labour pool. Who's the ultimate winner?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That's an argument for solidarity the UK workers have to make with their Italian bothers, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



cat4 pay comes with the proviso of "on site accommodation" thus living expenses don't need to be paid also.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

So because they've got accomodation, they are therefore working on the Cat4 payscale?

Fine, that's good enough for me.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That's an argument for solidarity the UK workers have to make with their Italian bothers, not me.



Well, indeed. 

And to me it seems that any anger directed at the foreign workers should also be directed at any UK workers who take on non-unionised jobs, or work that is paid at less than whatever someone has decided is an acceptable rate.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Well, indeed.
> 
> And to me it seems that any anger directed at the foreign workers should also be directed at any UK workers who take on non-unionised jobs, or work that is paid at less than whatever someone has decided is an acceptable rate.



It has been but agency work put paid to that.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Chilango says some on the left on here, have 'swallowed it hook line and sinker', is this a smear
> 
> What people like Durruti, and myself and Baldwin(am i endorsing him!) and recently Snadge have been saying is that you can't have the sort of breackneck globalisation that the UK has seen, one of the most open economies in thhe world without dislocation. Something like this was predictable here in the UK, particualrly as the labour movement and the left are so weak here. The left is disconnected fom the fears and desires of most working class people, i remember being amazed when there were some construction workers on the Lebanon demo here, turns out they were Polish! The earlier warning was the Petrol Dispute, when wildcats with no organic links to the wider but diminished labour movement broke out. One has to wonder how this will pan out?, it is only going to get bigger and there really doesn't seem to an effective response from progressives, the left, etc. Calling them xenophobes, nationalists, etc, won't work, and the BNP seem to be more welcome on the picket lines than anyone else, its not a good situation and people may get physically hurt, some of the areas involved have been 'seething with resentment for years'
> 
> no answers here.



A smear?

How is it a smear?

I'll get back to the rest of what you say in a bit...but if you could justify or retract your accusation of me "smearing" that would be nice. Ta.


----------



## steve0223 (Jan 30, 2009)

> The way this dispute pans out isn’t set in stone and socialists need to be prepared to argue our own politics against nationalist illusions and not reject what’s happening as hopelessly reactionary. Socialists argue that people’s attitudes and politics change through struggle even if they start of with reactionary opinions. We should have confidence in our own arguments.



Here is a great article on the situation that doesn't dismiss the workers concerns as racist, and refuses to endorse nationalistic arguments


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

Quite simply, the strikers are reactionary scumbags making racist demands, who i am quite content to be sacked ont he spot. Britsh jobs for british workers- yeah right 

The biggest shame in the local unions which have pandered to racism rather than confronting it

This has the potential to be our Imperial Typewriters dispute, liek Leicester in 1974

http://bnp.           org.uk/2009/01/grimsby-oil-refinery-workers-strike-over-influx-of-foreign-workers/

BNP already supporting the scum.


----------



## Random (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Quite simply, the strikers are reactionary scumbags making racist demands, who i am quite content to be sacked ont he spot. Britsh jobs for british workers- yeah right
> 
> The biggest shame in the local unions which have pandered to racism rather than confronting it
> 
> ...


 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=276152


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

I think it's a fairly easy argument to make once you get it into people's heads the reality of the European labour market having no borders for _anyone_.

Good article BTW steve



> The protests and strikes at the moment seem to be viewing unemployment in the industry as some sort of local problem caused by foreign labour.  This isn’t the case. There have been massive job losses all across Europe and sending migrant workers ‘home’ won’t do anything to alter this in a global economic slowdown.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> I'll get back to the rest of what you say in a bit...but if you could justify or retract your accusation of me "smearing" that would be nice. Ta.




retracted, clearly a misunderstanding


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> 2. There was no uniion push in the 1990s to expand their sphere of influence into other countries, of linking up with European unions to ensure that there was the possibility of EU wide best practice for all workers.





@KS, 

where do you get that one from, there have been union and TUC offices, lobbyists in Brussels for many years, and of course there was the battle for the Social Chapter.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

btw, i notice not one of our SWP posters has commented on all this, I wonder why, not with the programme, is it?


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> btw, i notice not one of our SWP posters has commented on all this, I wonder why, not with the programme, is it?



SW editorial last week roundly condemned economic nationalism like this


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> @KS,
> 
> where do you get that one from, there have been union and TUC offices, lobbyists in Brussels for many years, and of course there was the battle for the Social Chapter.



That has nothing to do with what I've said.

Where were the TU offices set up in Eastern Europe next to the employment agencies that grew fat on commissions on worker's wages who knew no better, other than 'You'll be working in the UK and earning 30 times what you can here, and be accomodated'? 

Where are the EU wide agreements between fraternal unions that match the reach of EU employment laws and how they are implemented nationally? 

This is what I'm talking about. Lobbying Brussels and Westminster for the social chapter was only ever going to be half the story. More to the point, the social chapter was signed by the rest of the EU before the UK signed up to all it's tenets, specifically WRT the minimum wage.

Where was the EU wide _union_ agreement that no worker shall undercut a fellow worker in another EU nation? There isn't one.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> retracted, clearly a misunderstanding



Thank you.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Quite simply, the strikers are reactionary scumbags making racist demands, who i am quite content to be sacked ont he spot. Britsh jobs for british workers- yeah right
> 
> The biggest shame in the local unions which have pandered to racism rather than confronting it
> 
> ...



Appaling post. The radio has carried reports from strikers highlighting their appreciation that this isn't about the workers country of origin but rather their terms and conditions. Writing off all the strikers (and by inference their supporters?) as reactionary racist scumbags is guaranteed to close down the chance of discussing the real issues that are threatening construction workers in the UK, Italy, Portgual and elsewhere.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. Jim just go and have a read of the comments on the BNP's own site re. this dispute and see how your appreciation of what is going on chimes in with their idea of how the left sees the strikers.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5617015.ece



Simon Darby (BNP) blog reports as follows 

"Unconfirmed reports now coming in to us of workers at South Hook and Dragon Liquified Natural Gas plants in Milford Haven starting to down tools. Staythorpe construction workers (Nottingham) and at Motherwell Bridge considering action also. "


http://www.falkirkherald.co.uk/news/Mass-walkout-over-foreign-worker.4931304.jp
Grangemouth and Fife 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...ntre-of-foreign-staff-protest-91466-22817149/
Wales too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7860394.stm
Widnes


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage, those comments are fucking disgusting. People like you on the left are the problem, not the solution. Please go away and retire from politics.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Chilango says some on the left on here, have 'swallowed it hook line and sinker', is this a smear
> 
> What people like Durruti, and myself and Baldwin(am i endorsing him!) and recently Snadge have been saying is that you can't have the sort of breackneck globalisation that the UK has seen, one of the most open economies in thhe world without dislocation. Something like this was predictable here in the UK, particualrly as the labour movement and the left are so weak here. The left is disconnected fom the fears and desires of most working class people, i remember being amazed when there were some construction workers on the Lebanon demo here, turns out they were Polish! The earlier warning was the Petrol Dispute, when wildcats with no organic links to the wider but diminished labour movement broke out. One has to wonder how this will pan out?, it is only going to get bigger and there really doesn't seem to an effective response from progressives, the left, etc. Calling them xenophobes, nationalists, etc, won't work, and the BNP seem to be more welcome on the picket lines than anyone else, its not a good situation and people may get physically hurt, some of the areas involved have been 'seething with resentment for years'
> 
> no answers here.




The problem is that in disputes like this, it very quickly becomes a nationalistic issue.

The base issue, that of the conflict between labour and capital is sidelined as a parochial protectionism is wheeled out.

This issue has nothing to do with nationality.

It has everything to do with bosses seeking to maximise profitiablity.

The key issue is still, as it has always been, "more work, less money" for the workers. 

As soon as we bring the idea of "British Jobs for British workers" (or the kindler, gentler version: "local jobs for local workers") we have lost.

We are no longer addressing the cause.

As I said above this logic leads to a position of even if we were to scceed in protectionist goals we would end up with competitive i.e. lower wages, conditions etc.

That the terrain of the argument is shifted to nationalism, then it is to the advantage of the right the bosses and the racists.

That we allow ourselves to lose sight of the most basic element of the class struggle is an unmitigated disaster to our prospects.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Quite simply, the strikers are reactionary scumbags making racist demands, who i am quite content to be sacked ont he spot. Britsh jobs for british workers- yeah right



Fuck off tossbag.

What does it take for the left to get off their racism mantra.

Previously NAECI agreed rates of pay across the board, regardless of nationality is what is being fought for.

By paying foreign workers less money and charging them for food and secured accommodation the companies are saving a fortune, there is also the local knock on effects to the local small businesses, BnB's that rent out cheap rooms to the contractors, local pubs and shops all suffer.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Fuck off tossbag.
> 
> What does it take for the left to get off their racism mantra.
> 
> ...



Here is my problem...why didn't you write:

By paying workers less money and charging them for food and secured accommodation the companies are saving a fortune, there is also the local knock on effects to the local small businesses, BnB's that rent out cheap rooms to the contractors, local pubs and shops all suffer...

why highlight that they are foreign?

what does that have to do with the battle?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Do you know what the real irony is, this is a genuine opportunity to get EU-wide worker's solidarity in a massive industry, something the strikers seem to really actually be getting, unlike peeps like jimpage and the AMICUS and UNITE bosses.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Appaling post. The radio has carried reports from strikers highlighting their appreciation that this isn't about the workers country of origin but rather their terms and conditions. Writing off all the strikers (and by inference their supporters?) as reactionary racist scumbags is guaranteed to close down the chance of discussing the real issues that are threatening construction workers in the UK, Italy, Portgual and elsewhere.
> 
> Louis MacNeice
> 
> p.s. Jim just go and have a read of the comments on the BNP's own site re. this dispute and see how your appreciation of what is going on chimes in with their idea of how the left sees the strikers.



Look, if you failt to say, as the Uniosn shoudl be , that foreign workers are welcome here, to live and work, its a slippery slope to sacking foreign workers and replacing them with british ones. For Internationalists, a workers place of origin is irrelevant

These strikers, despite what they say, want British Jobs for British Workers- and that is a racist sentiment


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Fuck off tossbag.
> 
> What does it take for the left to get off their racism mantra.
> 
> ...



Go away, racist troll


----------



## Mr Moose (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> That sort of response is not on my radar. The bosses trying to use cheap labour to undermine existing rates and condtions are 'in the wrong'  - whether that's legal or not.



Makes it simple for the benefit of some of you who are in doubt.

It not unlikely that a large company will receive some sort of favourable incentives from local government to undertake large projects. In return 'social benefit' is expected, for instance in partnership to identify local jobseekers with the skills or potential to do the jobs.

A company that deliberately seeks not to employ locals to drive down wages is parasitic on that area. End of.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> JimPage, those comments are fucking disgusting. People like you on the left are the problem, not the solution. Please go away and retire from politics.



Why? Cant you get it that Racism and Nationalism are at the heart of the workers arguement here. 

Pandering to these racist arguements in exactly the reason why the BNP got 27% in Newcastle last night


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Mr Moose said:


> Makes it simple for the benefit of some of you who are in doubt.
> 
> It not unlikely that a large company will receive some sort of favourable incentives from local government to undertake large projects. In return 'social benefit' is expected, for instance in partnership to identify local jobseekers with the skills or potential to do the jobs.
> 
> A company that deliberately seeks not to employ locals to drive down wages is parasitic on that area. End of.



Capitalism is parasitic by nature.

This is just one example of this.


----------



## Random (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> These strikers, despite what they say, want British Jobs for British Workers- and that is a racist sentiment


Typical liberal leftie.  So worried about being contaminated with racism you're happy to go along with bosses' plans and call for workers to be sacked by them!  Awful stuff and a real stragetic blunder.  Sadly I think a lot of UK trots and anarcho lefties will have the same knee jerk reaction...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Random said:


> Typical liberal leftie.  So worried about being contaminated with racism you're happy to go along with bosses' plans and call for workers to be sacked by them!  Awful stuff and a real stragetic blunder.  Sadly I think a lot of UK trots and anarcho lefties will have the same knee jerk reaction...



As has been pointed out, if you just remove the word 'foreign' from the complaints and make it about workers vs bosses/companies that charge dissappears.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Why? Cant you get it that Racism and Nationalism are at the heart of the workers arguement here.
> 
> Pandering to these racist arguements in exactly the reason why the BNP got 27% in Newcastle last night



Or writing off people seeking to defend their jobs (by arguing for fair competition as some of them have been doing) as being reactionary racist scumbags drives people away. It also ties in with the line the BNP is giving  on the left's attitude towards the strikers. Own goals all round.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Here is my problem...why didn't you write:
> 
> By paying workers less money and charging them for food and secured accommodation the companies are saving a fortune, there is also the local knock on effects to the local small businesses, BnB's that rent out cheap rooms to the contractors, local pubs and shops all suffer...
> 
> ...



A lot, the foreign workers are making more money than they could in their own country, by securing them in billets there is no chance that they will be allowed to join a union or hear the arguments being made, the employers are using these billeted workers in a racist manner, sort of waving a red flag to local unemployed tradesmen.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Look, if you failt to say, as the Uniosn shoudl be , that foreign workers are welcome here, to live and work, its a slippery slope to sacking foreign workers and replacing them with british ones. For Internationalists, a workers place of origin is irrelevant
> 
> *These strikers, despite what they say, want British Jobs for British Workers- and that is a racist sentiment*



You know better than them what they mean when they open their mouths? Carry on as you were then; you've obviously got it covered.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Go away, racist troll




 and you sir, are a banana.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> The strikers are at the end of the North Wall blocking the buses from getting out - go boys!!!!





hotting up...


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> A lot, the foreign workers are making more money than they could in their own country, by securing them in billets there is no chance that they will be allowed to join a union or hear the arguments being made, the employers are using these billeted workers in a racist manner, sort of waving a red flag to local unemployed tradesmen.



That is all true.

But again nowt to do with being "foreign".

It is not too hard to imagine a similar scenario using workers from a more impoverished part of the UK in the same way.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Or writing off people seeking to defend their jobs (by arguing for fair competition as some of them have been doing) as being reactionary racist scumbags drives people away. It also ties in with the line the BNP is giving  on the left's attitude towards the strikers. Own goals all round.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



But they are not "their" jobs. They are jobs. Workers are coming from elsewhere in the EU to full them? So what?

Where has the lefts, and the unions, internationalism gone?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> That is all true.
> 
> But again nowt to do with being "foreign".
> 
> It is not too hard to imagine a similar scenario using workers from a more impoverished part of the UK in the same way.



Employers already did that when Tebbit told us to get on our bikes....

and we did.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> Awful stuff and a real stragetic blunder. Sadly I think a lot of UK trots and anarcho lefties will have the same knee jerk reaction...




Yes, its going to be either 'wake up time' or 'headfuck city' for many of them, not much on on the Daily Palestine yet(indymedia uk)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> A lot, the foreign workers are making more money than they could in their own country, by securing them in billets there is no chance that they will be allowed to join a union or hear the arguments being made, the employers are using these billeted workers in a racist manner, sort of waving a red flag to local unemployed tradesmen.



You've got to get over this whole business of 'country'. These are EU nationals, same as you and I, and they are working, for all legal purposes governing employment in the EU, in the same country.

Think of this like someone from Essex undercutting your wages rather than someone from Italy. They might be 'foreign' in that they're from another country, but as legal entities they may as well be from the UK.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

Surely this won't just be about pay rates but all the other costs (e.g. taxes and social insurances) that the contractors incur and the means they have of recovering them (e.g. charging for accomodation); to get a clear view of the 'fairness' or otherwise of the competition between construction workers all the financial detail needs to be brought into the open.

If anybody has information on this could they please post it up inorder to make for a better informed discussion.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Employers already did that when Tebbit told us to get on our bikes....
> 
> and we did.



...and now these guys are doing the same thing. They've relocated to work, the only difference is they speak a different language.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> LOL yes they are, they do not receive blue book agreed pay because accommodation is provided, it is the "get out clause" if you will.



How do you know they're not recieving pay for accomodation? I did in Germany because I was entitled to it, even though accomodation was provided.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Employers already did that when Tebbit told us to get on our bikes....
> 
> and we did.



Exactly.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> ...and now these guys are doing the same thing. They've relocated to work, the only difference is they speak a different language.



There may well be other differences; please see my post above re. costs etc.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Bun (Jan 30, 2009)

no, he is not a banana, he is a cunt. Wanting workers fighting back to be sacked. The BNP are getting 27% because of freaks like him. Fuck off to planet trot..


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> There may well be other differences; please see my post above re. costs etc.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Good luck, I was asking for the same information about 2 pages ago.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> You've got to get over this whole business of 'country'. These are EU nationals, same as you and I, and they are working, for all legal purposes governing employment in the EU, in the same country.





says the true middle class 'global citizen' it may be correct, but i don't think it is going to wash with these really desperate people.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> says the true middle class 'global citizen' it may be correct, but i don't think it is going to wash with these really desperate people.



It is correct, and thats why any resistance has to be on that basis.

You resist using an incorrect argument and you will lose.

Especially if that is an argument that plays right into the hands of the other side.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> says the true middle class 'global citizen' it may be correct, but i don't think it is going to wash with these really desperate people.



WTF? Here's a simple fact tl, the EU has been a single labour market for nearly 20 years. It's nothing to do with being a 'middle class global citizen' - UK construction workers were making up a higher % of UK employees in Europe a long time before the m/c were there - in fact because of the differences in things like law, teaching, medcine and lots of other m.c jobs in some respects it's _easier_ getting trade work in the EU because there's a greater shared skills base and more commonality in standards - also driven by the EU.

So please, drop your own easy stereotyping - those who work in construction were global workers while I was still in school.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> There are several levels on the NAECI pay grades, they are paying foreign workers  cat4 now which is agricultural worker so not 'technically" breaking the agreement, the pay should be cat1 and cat2 for all workers on a new steel project.



So basically the union fucked up by negotiating a weak agreement with more holes than a Swiss cheese and now they're blaming the result on a bunch of Italian workers, legally employed on a contract in the UK.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

Post By Nick Griffin on this all on BNP website

"This grass-roots movement by British workers in defence of British workers has the potential to spread like wildfire. We need all BNP and Solidarity members and supporters working in refineries, power stations (the Truth Truck got a great reception from the thousands of workers streaming in to Sellafield in Cumbria this morning) and on construction sites generally to raise with their workmates the idea of sympathetic walkouts. Spread the word! 

The combination of the news of industrial action against imported scab labour in East Lindsey, and the 300% surge in the BNP vote in Newcastle, will make Thursday 29th January a key date in the coming victory of our brand of moderate but uncompromising nationalism".


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Tl, do you actually understand what the Single European Act means in terms of work?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> cat4 pay comes with the proviso of "on site accommodation" thus living expenses don't need to be paid also.



So the agreement didn't include provisos as to the standard of accomodation that should be supplied tsk tsk


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> So basically the union fucked up by negotiating a weak agreement with more holes than a Swiss cheese and now they're blaming the result on a bunch of Italian workers, legally employed on a contract in the UK.



The blame is not directed at the Italian workers, but at the company if they are shown to be employing workers from Italy and Portugal inorder to drive down their overall costs.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Glenquagmire, stop fucking stalking me across the left blogosphere, the net is there for discussion!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Glenquagmire, stop fucking stalking me across the left blogosphere, the net is there for discussion!



Wrong thread?


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The blame is not directed at the Italian workers, but at the company if they are shown to be employing workers from Italy and Portugal inorder to drive down their overall costs.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Thats a nuance thats easy to lose.

perhaps if phrased like this it would better...

The blame is not directed at the Italian workers, but at the company trying to drive down their overall costs.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

'Wrong thread? 



no, it isn't, he is online now,  he is attacking me all over the net on these very issues, its pathetic and has to stop


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Just wondered cos he's not on this thread, and that seemed a pretty direct response...whatever...


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Thats a nuance thats easy to lose.



not sure angry workers on a picket line have much time for nuances.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

More from Simon Darby blog. This is getting our of hand

"Staff at St Fergus Gas terminal, Aberdeenshire, Mossmoran (North of Edinburgh) and Dounreay (nr Thurso) reported to have now downed tools over foreign workers. "

"Fiddler's Ferry Power Station in Warrington joins the list as BNP truth trucks deployed."


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Glenquagmire, stop fucking stalking me across the left blogosphere, the net is there for discussion!



you deserve stalking for using the word blogosphere


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> LOR workers were also protesting at Grimsby's port this morning, where the foreign workers are living on a barge on the North Wall.
> 
> They vowed to stop any movement from the docks by the Italian workers.
> 
> ...






anyway, it seems the picketers are now at Grimsby docks, blockading the 'accomodation ship'


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> you deserve stalking for using the word blogosphere




Guilty, your honour!


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Where was the EU wide _union_ agreement that no worker shall undercut a fellow worker in another EU nation? There isn't one.



Exactly, how about a bit of unity throughout the whole labour market instead of the "I'm alright Jack" attitude that's existed until now.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Dan U said:


> not sure angry workers on a picket line have much time for nuances.



Quite. Thats why we have to pretty damn clear.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> anyway, it seems the picketers are now at Grimsby docks, blockading the 'accomodation ship'


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 30, 2009)

The coverage of this is all wrong IMO. It's all talking about "foreigners". Whereas surely the protest isn't about foreigners at all but at the shitty business practices of the employers just to eek out a little bit more "shareholder value".


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> Galloway: ‘It’s about decent jobs, available to all’
> 
> Reacting to news of wildcat walkouts from construction sites across Britain, Respect MP George Galloway says:
> 
> ...



http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3496


the plot thickens, Galloway has just endorsed the strikers


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Thats a nuance thats easy to lose.
> 
> perhaps if phrased like this it would better...
> 
> The blame is not directed at the Italian workers, but at the company trying to drive down their overall costs.



The union bods I've heard today have been clear that their beef is with the employer/main contractor; they weren't being nuanced.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The blame is not directed at the Italian workers, but at the company if they are shown to be employing workers from Italy and Portugal inorder to drive down their overall costs.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



but the company employing the Italian workers is an Italian company that's why they tend to have Italian employees, they competed for and won a contract in the EU, easy as that.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> but the company employing the Italian workers is an Italian company that's why they tend to have Italian employees, they competed for and won a contract in the EU, easy as that.



But are abusing NAECI agreements to maximise profits and lower their costs, do you really think that they are brought their own "highly trained" workforce?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> More from Simon Darby blog. This is getting our of hand
> 
> "Staff at St Fergus Gas terminal, Aberdeenshire, Mossmoran (North of Edinburgh) and Dounreay (nr Thurso) reported to have now downed tools over foreign workers. "
> 
> "Fiddler's Ferry Power Station in Warrington joins the list as BNP truth trucks deployed."



Since when was Fiddler's Ferry in Warrington? I grew up 800 yards from it in Widnes.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Does it thicken? This is the equivalent of a rent-a-quote MP getting upset about a TV show, Galloway pops up first. I mean come on:



> That’s why the defence of national agreements is so important.



Which is why you need _international_ agreements...

It's a fucking joke. This has been happening since 1992, and everyone is treating this as if it's just fucking happened.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> But are abusing NAECI agreements to maximise profits and lower their costs, do you really think that they are brought their own "highly trained" workforce?



but if what they've done was as you said "technically correct" its more to do with the weak agreement that was negotiated, if it had been robust and applicable to ALL workers there would have been less of a problem. 

I take it 





> "highly trained" workforce?


 means you doubt the qualifications and/or abilities of those involved, care to back that up with facts?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> But are abusing NAECI agreements to maximise profits and lower their costs, do you really think that they are brought their own "highly trained" workforce?



Much as I accept your word on this, no one, not even BERR, have seen hard evidence that this is the case, and so far UNITE have been unable to provide any.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The union bods I've heard today have been clear that their beef is with the employer/main contractor; they weren't being nuanced.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice



Good.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> ....It's a fucking joke. This has been happening since 1992, and everyone is treating this as if it's just fucking happened.



because up until now the UK has had it relatively good, now that the bubble has burst, guess who's left holding the shitty end of the stick?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> but if what they've done was as you said "technically correct" its more to do with the weak agreement that was negotiated, if it had been robust and applicable to ALL workers there would have been less of a problem.
> 
> I take it  means you doubt the qualifications and/or abilities of those involved, care to back that up with facts?



I have had to redo enough pipe welding on the snagging lists of jobs I've been on done by foreign welders with a BASIC coding for welding which is a six week course.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

Not got time to read all this - I'd missed the thread, but just got a PM pointing me to it.

Apologies for repeating stuff if I am, but the action has spread to Grangemouth and Longanet, and Peterhead.  1, 500 out in Scotland, and spreading across the UK.

I'm assuming people on the thread have pointed out that this is about bosses turning workers against each other in order to destabilize unity and undercut wages?  I don't know what the unions are saying yet, as the radio only had people in a personal capacity, but their job ought to be to steer the rhetoric away from "British jobs for British workers" towards "fair rates for all workers".  Setting the Italians up as the enemy rather than the bosses obviously plays into the bosses hands, and I'd have said representation to the Italian workers ought to be a priority.  If (and I'm not saying it'd be easy) they can be persuaded to come out in sympathy, then the way the story is reported would take on a different complexion.  

Sorry if I'm repeating, and sorry for brevity, but I've got things to do.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> I have had to redo enough pipe welding on the snagging lists of jobs I've been on done by foreign welders with a BASIC coding for welding which is a six week course.



The old 'foreign workers are shit' argument. I heard that so often in Germany, how rubbish the Brits were at building anything. Shoddy brickwork, not like proper German builders. Pure xenophobia.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Not got time to read all this - I'd missed the thread, but just got a PM pointing me to it.
> 
> Apologies for repeating stuff if I am, but the action has spread to Grangemouth and Longanet, and Peterhead.  1, 500 out in Scotland, and spreading across the UK.
> 
> ...




Not at all. Good post.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> I have had to redo enough pipe welding on the snagging lists of jobs I've been on done by foreign welders with a BASIC coding for welding which is a six week course.



Well that's more work for you and a system that be in your advantage in the end, no employer wants to pay double for a job.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm assuming people on the thread have pointed out that this is about bosses turning workers against each other in order to destabilize unity and undercut wages?  I don't know what the unions are saying yet, as the radio only had people in a personal capacity, but their job ought to be to steer the rhetoric away from "British jobs for British workers" towards "fair rates for all workers".  Setting the Italians up as the enemy rather than the bosses obviously plays into the bosses hands, and I'd have said representation to the Italian workers ought to be a priority.  If (and I'm not saying it'd be easy) they can be persuaded to come out in sympathy, then the way the story is reported would take on a different complexion.



Well said this is "divide and rule" plus "scapegoat politics" and it seems many have fallen for it. I get the impression that representation to the Italian workers is a bit late cosidering the amount of bile thats been directed at them.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> That has nothing to do with what I've said.
> 
> Where were the TU offices set up in Eastern Europe next to the employment agencies that grew fat on commissions on worker's wages who knew no better, other than 'You'll be working in the UK and earning 30 times what you can here, and be accomodated'?
> 
> ...



Both Unite unions, T&G and Amicus DO have the kind of cross-european deals you are talking about.  Both are members of a variety of bodies, not least the European TUC, which work together to stop incidences such as his from taking place. part of the formation of Unite was explicitly on the basis of becoming a union that could go europe wide, which is why there are also talk of merger with unions in germany and the US.

Union officers are also being set up in Eastern Europe as well, and they have been for the last few years.  When the Single European Market came in there was a legal right for anyone to move anywhere to work, but it wasn't that widely taken up.  Most Euro countries had broadly similar wages and standards of living, so the likelihood of large groups of migrant workers moving cross-borders wasn't likely to happen, and didn't. Portuguese, Greek and Irish workers _did_ have significantly lower incomes, and there was some thought that some workers from those countries might travel, but the first two lots were always likely to go somewhere more Mediterranean than the UK, so 'we' weren't that bothered (and it didn't happen that much anyway), and the Irish had had the right to travel for ever anyway, so that wasn't any change.

It was only when the EU expanded eastwards that it became an issue.  I think the number of migrant workers from those countries took everyone by surprise, and the unions weren't ready to deal with it, and hadn't thought strategic plans through enough. That was recognised during the last expansion, so more union work as done in the 'home' countries, including setting up of officers etc.

As to the EU wide union agreement no worker shall undercut a fellow worker in another EU nation, there isn't a formal one because that is a principal of trade unionism, it doesn't require an explicit document or motion saying so.  Tho I am also not sure how it is relevant here, as these italian workers haven't been brought in by, or with the support of, any italian (or other) union.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

wait untill the welfare reforms kick in and some of the poorest incur benefit sanctions, eg cuts, they will then look around for scapegoats, etc.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> The old 'foreign workers are shit' argument. I heard that so often in Germany, how rubbish the Brits were at building anything. Shoddy brickwork, not like proper German builders. Pure xenophobia.



I didn't say that, I said the worker had lesser training, with the proper training he could be as good as me and have ASME9 6G certification which is the norm on structural jobs, but certification has been downgraded for certain jobs and even structural jobs are now classed under the lower B.S.

meaning that my ASME9 is only required on certain jobs whereas it used to be the norm, now a six week course suffices and you are going to get big snagging lists.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

All I know is that this sort of action strikes me as a genuine response to fears people have about their every day lives.

And if you lot on the left dont harness it for something positive then the BNP will.

Yep, I am a [insert insult here] Tory but its stuff like this scares the shit out me because its a battle ground that the left have to beat the BNP on.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs> Changing all those words to "EU" misses the point completly, and yes there is a big fucking problem with that. The EU is not a single government where everyone pays taxes centrally. If you can not see the problem with the way the EU is structured then I dispear. The whole thing is a god damn mess.
The comments about Africa and Monaco are relevant, try looking at the bigger picture please as well. Just because we are "in" the EU does not mean suddenly everything they do is OK.
Unless you think that it is OK for the country to not have a say on membership and hand over money/infastructure willy nilly?



> The EU seems to bring out the Little Englander in many people. When the Tories get back in we can happily kick all the foreigners out again



Oh dear you aren't one of those are you? Shutting the argument down with a comment that essentially calls somebody expressing an anti-EU opinion as racist by proxy...


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> All I know is that this sort of action strikes me as a genuine response to fears people have about their every day lives.
> 
> And if you lot on the left dont harness it for something positive then the BNP will.
> 
> Yep, I am a [insert insult here] Tory but its stuff like this scares the shit out me because its a battle ground that the left have to beat the BNP on.



hammer, nail, head.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Post By Nick Griffin on this all on BNP website
> 
> "This grass-roots movement by British workers in defence of British workers has the potential to spread like wildfire. We need all BNP and Solidarity members and supporters working in refineries, power stations (the Truth Truck got a great reception from the thousands of workers streaming in to Sellafield in Cumbria this morning) and on construction sites generally to raise with their workmates the idea of sympathetic walkouts. Spread the word!
> 
> The combination of the news of industrial action against imported scab labour in East Lindsey, and the 300% surge in the BNP vote in Newcastle, will make Thursday 29th January a key date in the coming victory of our brand of moderate but uncompromising nationalism".




So. Fucking. What.

They are so opportunist that if you looked hard enough you could find a BNP quote to support anything.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> wait untill the welfare reforms kick in and some of the poorest incur benefit sanctions, eg cuts, they will then look around for scapegoats, etc.



Of course they will.

That is why we have to be very very clear in not giving them credence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> Both Unite unions, T&G and Amicus DO have the kind of cross-european deals you are talking about.  Both are members of a variety of bodies, not least the European TUC, which work together to stop incidences such as his from taking place. part of the formation of Unite was explicitly on the basis of becoming a union that could go europe wide, which is why there are also talk of merger with unions in germany and the US.
> 
> Union officers are also being set up in Eastern Europe as well, and they have been for the last few years.  When the Single European Market came in there was a legal right for anyone to move anywhere to work, but it wasn't that widely taken up.  Most Euro countries had broadly similar wages and standards of living, so the likelihood of large groups of migrant workers moving cross-borders wasn't likely to happen, and didn't. Portuguese, Greek and Irish workers _did_ have significantly lower incomes, and there was some thought that some workers from those countries might travel, but the first two lots were always likely to go somewhere more Mediterranean than the UK, so 'we' weren't that bothered (and it didn't happen that much anyway), and the Irish had had the right to travel for ever anyway, so that wasn't any change.
> 
> ...



Fair points - it just seems/ed like this was all coming as a bolt from the blue. I'd also say that there _not_ being a formalised agreement is exactly the sort of thing that is missing.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Of course they will.
> 
> That is why we have to be very very clear in not giving them credence.



as long as they don't meet people like Jim Page shouting racist at them and hoping they lose there jobs because they react in a way that isn't 100% to his liking.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

@DC

It's the same on Indymedia, anti-fa types just going on about the BNP, nothing about the import of the strike which is becoming massive and historical for good or bad,


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Fuchs> Changing all those words to "EU" misses the point completly, and yes there is a big fucking problem with that. The EU is not a single government where everyone pays taxes centrally. If you can not see the problem with the way the EU is structured then I dispear. The whole thing is a god damn mess.
> The comments about Africa and Monaco are relevant, try looking at the bigger picture please as well. Just because we are "in" the EU does not mean suddenly everything they do is OK.
> Unless you think that it is OK for the country to not have a say on membership and hand over money/infastructure willy nilly?
> ...



Sorry but I dont think it misses the point at all, in fact I think the fact that both the UK and Italy are EU member states IS the point.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> I didn't say that, I said the worker had lesser training, with the proper training he could be as good as me and have ASME9 6G certification which is the norm on structural jobs, but certification has been downgraded for certain jobs and even structural jobs are now classed under the lower B.S.
> 
> meaning that my ASME9 is only required on certain jobs whereas it used to be the norm, now a six week course suffices and you are going to get big snagging lists.



Not from you, from my German friends. You'd think they'd lost a war or something.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> Chilano said
> Of course they will.
> 
> That is why we have to be very very clear in not giving them credence.





But that is my point, the left, radicals and others have done fuck all on the reforms and then they will go around telling some of the most fucked people in the UK they are wrong.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Dan U said:


> as long as they don't meet people like Jim Page shouting racist at them and hoping they lose there jobs because they react in a way that isn't 100% to his liking.



Note that I have not accused anyone of being racist.

It is a major concern though that some here are allowing the argument to fall comfortable into terrain that will both aid actual racists and cause the workers' goals to be lost anyway.

We must not give an inch to the divide and rule tactic, nor must we pander for one second to nationalistic distractions, and we have to try and win this argument.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> But that is my point, the left, radicals and others have done fuck all on the reforms and then they will go around telling some of the most fucked people in the UK they are wrong.



If some of the workers are arguing for "Britsh Jobs for British Workers" or similar then they _are_ wrong. 

Wrong and doomed to defeat.

Thus it is our responsibilty to always bring the argument back to the real issue and not pander to the right.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> All I know is that this sort of action strikes me as a genuine response to fears people have about their every day lives.
> 
> And if you lot on the left dont harness it for something positive then the BNP will.
> 
> Yep, I am a [insert insult here] Tory but its stuff like this scares the shit out me because its a battle ground that the left have to beat the BNP on.


 
And if the hard left are wibble on about the racism of the strikers and do not see that these are people desperate to keep their jobs. They are just shooting themselves in the foot whilst showing the hard right an open goal and the hard right being very apt to exploit any opportunity will not miss that opportunity. The hard left has to make a choice do they support UK workers in their fight to keep their jobs or do they care more for about some amorphous concept of internationalism. I bet that if these workers had called for wildcat strikes over the Israeli actions in Gaza the hard left would have supported them 100%.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> The hard left has to make a choice do they support UK workers in their fight to keep their jobs or do they care more for about some amorphous concept of internationalism. I bet that if these workers had called for wildcat strikes over the Israeli actions in Gaza the hard left would have supported them 100%.



Don't you get it? In the context of the EU labour market the 'internationalism' concept is _dead_ - it's a single labour market, essentially a single country. So it's not an amorphous concept, it's a very, very real issue that you don't seem to be able to get your head around.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Note that I have not accused anyone of being racist.
> 
> It is a major concern though that some here are allowing the argument to fall comfortable into terrain that will both aid actual racists and cause the workers' goals to be lost anyway.
> 
> We must not give an inch to the divide and rule tactic, nor must we pander for one second to nationalistic distractions, and we have to try and win this argument.



i agree with you.#


----------



## cantsin (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> All I know is that this sort of action strikes me as a genuine response to fears people have about their every day lives.
> 
> And if you lot on the left dont harness it for something positive then the BNP will.
> 
> Yep, I am a [insert insult here] Tory but its stuff like this scares the shit out me because its a battle ground that the left have to beat the BNP on.



not all of the "the left " are necessarily there soley to "harness " workers resentment Tory Boy , though it's interesting to hear such a naked class analysis from your side - SWP /Union Bureacrats etc take note , you're not doing your job properly , get those workers "harnessed " , Tory Boy's scared !


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Fair points - it just seems/ed like this was all coming as a bolt from the blue. I'd also say that there _not_ being a formalised agreement is exactly the sort of thing that is missing.



I'm really not sure what difference it would make (tho am very happy to be convinced otherwise). It would make the argument ever so slightly easier I suppose, tho as Snadge (I think) pointed out, these workers seem to have been taken on on what are officially 'approved' terms, terms which are being bent by the bosses. 

I haven't seen anything about the Italian workers being members of an Italian (or other) union, so quite what effect any formal agreement would have doesn't seem to be relevant, unfortunately.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

cantsin said:


> not all of the "the left " are necessarily there soley to "harness " workers resentment Tory Boy , though it's interesting to hear such a naked class analysis from your side - SWP /Union Bureacrats etc take note , you're not doing your job properly , get those workers "harnessed " , Tory Boy's scared !




But he's right.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Don't you get it? In the context of the EU labour market the 'internationalism' concept is _dead_ - it's a single labour market, essentially a single country. So it's not an amorphous concept, it's a very, very real issue that you don't seem to be able to get your head around.



not dead at all, just changed in strategic and tactical methods is all. The point is still the same - to support workers _of whatever country_ to secure economic and political justice, without doing so at the expense of any other worker _of whatever country_. Workers should not be used to undermine others' terms and conditions whether they are from Turin or Todmorden.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Don't you get it? In the context of the EU labour market the 'internationalism' concept is _dead_ - it's a single labour market, essentially a single country. So it's not an amorphous concept, it's a very, very real issue that you don't seem to be able to get your head around.


 

No its not, the EU labour market if it was a level playing field, would be an excellent idea. Where are the British companies winning contracts in EU countries? There are none because these countries would rather award these contracts to companies domiciled in their own country.
These non-UK workers employed by non-UK companies will not be paying their taxes into an EU treasury, they will be paying into their own countries treasury. Their own country will be getting the revenue whilst the UK will be paying benefits to the equally skilled UK workers who have not got a job.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> not dead at all, just changed in strategic and tactical methods is all. The point is still the same - to support workers _of whatever country_ to secure economic and political justice, without doing so at the expense of any other worker _of whatever country_. Workers should not be used to undermine others' terms and conditions whether they are from Turin or Todmorden.



Quite. 

This has nothing to do with "countries" at all.

...and everything to do with bosses screwing two sets of workers.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Where are the British companies winning contracts in EU countries?



My employers?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Quite.
> 
> This has nothing to do with "countries" at all.
> 
> ...and everything to do with bosses screwing two sets of workers.



agreed.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> From the BBC HYS
> Workers of the world unite?TUC forgotten this?what about all the Brits abroad in Europe, Spain etc?if British workers weren't so greedy companies wouldn't employ 'foriegners', taking our jobs? most of those on the dole aren't even looking for jobs while getting it handed on a plate. We're all immigrants at the end of the day, our ancestors travelled here too.Please, British workers, do not pander to the BNP rantings and petty racism.





I love the way many 'liberals' contrast these 'hard working immigrants' with 'lazy indigenous dolies', 

er, not i don't, its dangerous stuff and the poster who then goes on about the BNP clearly doesn't get the irony.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> My employers?


 
Is this a £300m high end engineering/construction contract. The kind of contract with a long supply chain which actually creates jobs/wealth..?? The kind of contract that a national economy needs to survive..??


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> No its not, the EU labour market if it was a level playing field, would be an excellent idea. Where are the British companies winning contracts in EU countries? There are none because these countries would rather award these contracts to companies domiciled in their own country.



I know of one company at my second to last place of work in Germany who got contracted to install and maintain plasma lances, they were Oxford based. Not sure where you get the idea that UK based firms aren't getting contracts in other EU countries it's just not true.



> Is this a £300m high end engineering/construction contract. The kind of contract with a long supply chain which actually creates jobs/wealth..?? The kind of contract that a national economy needs to survive..??



Wasn't 300m but it was in the millions and very lucrative long term maintenance contract added on so yeah.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Is this a £300m high end engineering/construction contract. The kind of contract with a long supply chain which actually creates jobs/wealth..?? The kind of contract that a national economy needs to survive..??



Yeah!! 





...err...no.  but British companies _can _win contracts overseas, and employ Brits in them. That they aren't very good at it is a whole other argument.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> Where are the British companies winning contracts in EU countries? There are none because these countries would rather award these contracts to companies domiciled in their own country.



Can you prove this statement? No, because it's a _lie_. UK companies are perfectly capable of winnning overseas contracts in the EU and they do.

You, however, seem to be mistaking some place in your head for the actuality of the EU labour market, which is that it is a single entity, and every worker in the EU can move around it and find work.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> All I know is that this sort of action strikes me as a genuine response to fears people have about their every day lives.
> 
> And if you lot on the left dont harness it for something positive then the BNP will.
> 
> Yep, I am a [insert insult here] Tory but its stuff like this scares the shit out me because its a battle ground that the left have to beat the BNP on.



this.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Can you prove this statement? No, because it's a _lie_. UK companies are perfectly capable of winnning overseas contracts in the EU and they do.
> 
> You, however, seem to be mistaking some place in your head for the actuality of the EU labour market, which is that it is a single entity, and every worker in the EU can move around it and find work.



in this very industry British firms have for years been major players and exporters of knowledge, skills etc.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> Don't you get it? In the context of the EU labour market the 'internationalism' concept is dead - it's a single labour market, essentially a single country. So it's not an amorphous concept, it's a very, very real issue that you don't seem to be able to get your head around.



Kyser> Sorry but that is not exactly true. The EU does not operate like that, that is for the large part an illusion. For example those Italian workers should they say be here for the next 5 years could not vote for an MP and have no direct say in the situation that takes place in London via the democratic process. Residents of EU countries are exposed to all sorts of protectionism based on the fact they are NOT a citizen of the EU country they are residing in.
I have some very good examples from Poland for example if you want the links?

This is exactly why this whole concept of EU this EU that is a bunch of shite. The EU acts as a way of enforcing the labour laws that allow companies to employ cheap labour across Europe, it does not break down protectionism within the EU making ALL workers equal. Companies employing cheap labour and shipping it to another country have the added bonuses of not only can the local MP representing the workers NOT be voted in by them, for the large part these workers are isolated by language and their billited housing from the local community. 
In many nations they can not access the health care system for example. 

Where my comments about Monaco come into play which I mentioned to Fuchs are also relevant. There is absolutly nothing stopping a company CEO in Europe getting a tax break/lower operating costs in one nation (or in some cases bribing) setting up their HQ there, grabbing a load of workers, taking them to another EU nation, paying them less and also exposing them to a situation where they do NOT have the same rights as local workers. Then taking all the tax revenue back to said nation (where they pay less) and taking the profit, dumping it in Monaco where they can live the high life and then still acess the EU on their door step.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

The key aspect of it that infuriates workers is not that the contract was won by an Italian company, but the fact that workers in the immediate area, despite having the experience and qualifications, cannot even apply for the 400 or so jobs that have been created.

Surely people can at least understand the sense of raging injustice that this produces?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Because if you stick with "local jobs with local people"one this will very easily be manipulated into "British jobs for British workers" and is an argument that plays into the hands of th right. who have no interest in taking the side of the worker.
> 
> Secondly its an argument where the solution is easy. Local workers work for competitive (lower) wages.
> 
> If we continue to frame the argument this way. We _will_ lose.



So your against British jobs for British workers then?
What is the opposite of that? And doesnt that play into the hands of the  right who have no interest in taking the side of the worker?

People on the Left really need to get real when it comes to understanding the effects of economic migration.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Both TP and DC are correct.

But it is still being labelled by the left as racist.

Wankers.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Public spending never "has" to be slashed, there's always some fucking excuse.
> 
> In any case, I seriously doubt that the tiny amount of tax revenue that would be generated by a few hundred foreign manual labourers is going to have a signifigant impact on a situation where public spending has supposedly been slashed to the point where rubbish is piling up in the streets.



I don't know what you mean by 'always some fucking excuse', but believe you me, the state of the UK government books at present and future predictions over tax receipts and public spending liabilities is seriously unstable. At the height of the recent boom, government was still overspending by over 40 billion a year and the majority of receipts comes from income tax, NI and VAT -- nigh on 61 percent.

These are classic areas where recession hits receipts. With the waves of redundancies we have seen in just the last six months (in only the open chords of this depression) and the increased pressure on social protection budgets from that, public spending will have to reduce and taxes will have to rise -- and I suspect we will see the need to cut public spending by significant amounts by Q1 2010. 

You can't spend what you aint got.

It's not just about tax revenue from Italian labourers, but the cost to the State of unemployed nationals. If a private UK firm employs a national, he/she pays tax to the exchequer. If a private UK firm employs a non-national, he/she may still pay UK tax, but the state then has to pay for social protection for the national who is now unemployed.

In essence, if that non-national is paid below going rates, the State bears the burden of the drive for increased profit from that UK firm. 

The answer to this would be to use EU structures to redistribute labour revenue and liability across member states at the same level as national government distributes across UK regions, and reduce national government receipts to only, say, VAT, property, sales and sin -- ie. more of a US federal model, complete with centrally fixed IRs and central economic policy (as they already have in the Euro zone).

But the political consequences of such a move might be *ahem* rather explosive. And, already, there are problematic consequences of central IRs and membership of the Euro within the Euro zone. Germany is refusing to play ball, and centrally-fixed IRs haven't been too good for some EU countries. The Greek riots are partially an outcome of economic stress due to the adoption of euro in Greece. There will be issues in Spain (because it can't devalue anymore and has had its credit rating downgraded) and Ireland before long. Already, there are labour and liability issue in Italy (which is pretty fked cos, I believe, Italy sold its NI stream to investors - a nice opportunity to default there).

In Bloom, you might not like it, I might not like it, but at the end of the day, it is always about protecting wealth, that is what changes people politically  -- for a corporation, for an SME, for an individual, for a government. People are kind and ethical and nice in times of plenty; in times of famine, they can turn into something else entirely.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The key aspect of it that infuriates workers is not that the contract was won by an Italian company, but the fact that workers in the immediate area, despite having the experience and qualifications, cannot even apply for the 400 or so jobs that have been created.
> 
> Surely people can at least understand the sense of raging injustice that this produces?




No one (other than Jim Page) is disagreeing with that, are they?


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The key aspect of it that infuriates workers is not that the contract was won by an Italian company, but the fact that workers in the immediate area, despite having the experience and qualifications, cannot even apply for the 400 or so jobs that have been created.
> 
> Surely people can at least understand the sense of raging injustice that this produces?




What "injustice"? - it's a private commercial contract.

If I tender to have a bathroom renovated and choose a contractor who decides to do the job using a gang of Polish workmen they they have under contract, should I expect a load of knobs to start prancing outside my door bleating that I should have only employed "locals"?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> But it is still being labelled by the left as racist.
> 
> Wankers.


Really?  Overwhelmingly that isn't the case at all.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Kyser> Sorry but that is not exactly true. The EU does not operate like that, that is for the large part an illusion. For example those Italian workers should they say be here for the next 5 years could not vote for an MP and have no direct say in the situation that takes place in London via the democratic process. Residents of EU countries are exposed to all sorts of protectionism based on the fact they are NOT a citizen of the EU country they are residing in.
> I have some very good examples from Poland for example if you want the links?
> 
> This is exactly why this whole concept of EU this EU that is a bunch of shite. The EU acts as a way of enforcing the labour laws that allow companies to employ cheap labour across Europe, it does not break down protectionism within the EU making ALL workers equal. Companies employing cheap labour and shipping it to another country have the added bonuses of not only can the local MP representing the workers NOT be voted in by them, for the large part these workers are isolated by language and their billited housing from the local community.
> In many nations they can not access the health care system for example.



I seem to remember reading on here, someone saying their local GPs would not register their Portugeuse housemate/ friends on account of them not being in the country long enough and being originally from out of the UK. I didn't even think that sort of thing was allowed (refusal to take someone on)



> Where my comments about Monaco come into play which I mentioned to Fuchs are also relevant. There is absolutly nothing stopping a company CEO in Europe getting a tax break/lower operating costs in one nation (or in some cases bribing) setting up their HQ there, grabbing a load of workers, taking them to another EU nation, paying them less and also exposing them to a situation where they do NOT have the same rights as local workers. Then taking all the tax revenue back to said nation (where they pay less) and taking the profit, dumping it in Monaco where they can live the high life and then still acess the EU on their door step.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> What "injustice"? - it's a private commercial contract.
> 
> If I tender to have a bathroom renovated and choose a contractor who decides to do the job using a gang of Polish workmen they they have under contract, should I expect a load of knobs to start prancing outside my door bleating that I should have only employed "locals"?



oh, okay DC, there is always one prick!

Yup, you should expect to be abused, and worse cobbles.  And not only because of your would be employment practises


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> What "injustice"? - it's a private commercial contract.
> 
> If I tender to have a bathroom renovated and choose a contractor who decides to do the job using a gang of Polish workmen they they have under contract, should I expect a load of knobs to start prancing outside my door bleating that I should have only employed "locals"?



so you wouldn't be bothered they were getting paid peanuts and slept and ate on the job? ie they moved into your house until the job was done.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> I seem to remember reading on here, someone saying their local GPs would not register their Portugeuse housemate/ friends on account of them not being in the country long enough and being originally from out of the UK. I didn't even think that sort of thing was allowed (refusal to take someone on)



An EU migrant can only access free GP NHS services if they intend to settle in the UK, ie. be resident for six months or more. If not, they will be treated as private patients.

However, an EU migrant who is a student studying at a registered institution gets free NHS medical care.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> I love the way many 'liberals' contrast these 'hard working immigrants' with 'lazy indigenous dolies',
> 
> .



But these are people trying to avoid ending up on the dole, surely?


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> *An EU migrant can only access free GP NHS services if they intend to settle in the UK, ie. be resident for six months or more. If not, they will be treated as private patients.*
> 
> However, an EU migrant who is a student studying at a registered institution gets free NHS medical care.



That's total shit.  I just assumed they had something like the E1 11 or whatever that means you can get free treatment abroad.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> Kyser> Sorry but that is not exactly true. The EU does not operate like that, that is for the large part an illusion. For example those Italian workers should they say be here for the next 5 years could not vote for an MP and have no direct say in the situation that takes place in London via the democratic process. Residents of EU countries are exposed to all sorts of protectionism based on the fact they are NOT a citizen of the EU country they are residing in.
> I have some very good examples from Poland for example if you want the links?



For the purposes of getting a job, I have equal access to employment across the EU. I wasn't talking about services such as health, nor was I talking about voting rights. That some countries add protectionist legislation at a local level that I might have to overcome (which all EU nations do, for example, in terms of working for government for example) is irrelevant - I can work, visa free, in any of the 25. This, therefore, is the labour pool that people are working in.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> That's total shit.  I just assumed they had something like the E1 11 or whatever that means you can get free treatment abroad.



You do know that the NHS actually pays the overseas provider for the service? So it's not 'free treatment'. And you'd have similar issues trying to access GP, rather than A&E, care pretty much everywhere in the EU if you're only staying in country for 6 months.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

you get free _emergency_ treatment with the EHIC (as the E111 now is), but not GP services


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> In many nations they can not access the health care system for example.
> 
> Where my comments about Monaco come into play which I mentioned to Fuchs are also relevant. There is absolutly nothing stopping a company CEO in Europe getting a tax break/lower operating costs in one nation (or in some cases bribing) setting up their HQ there, grabbing a load of workers, taking them to another EU nation, paying them less and also exposing them to a situation where they do NOT have the same rights as local workers. Then taking all the tax revenue back to said nation (where they pay less) and taking the profit, dumping it in Monaco where they can live the high life and then still acess the EU on their door step.



The first part is incorrect, you have the same access to the health system of the country you live in within the EU as nationals of that country. You also have the same rights as nationals as far as work is concerned, if these rights are lacking or companies choose to ignore them that is another problem.

Monaco and the existance of tax havens in general is a completely different problem and nothing to do with this thread, I am against tax havens BTW where ever they are located.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Which, given that the GP you're signing up to, would then have to apply for your medical records from your last GP (or equivalent) on the contintent, the procedure for which varies from country to country, is only fair IMO. If you're coming to the UK with a chronic condition you should arrange insurance if you're intending to stay less than 6 months.


----------



## _angel_ (Jan 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> you get free _emergency_ treatment with the EHIC (as the E111 now is), but not GP services



It's a long time since I've been anywhere. I assumed you could get some gp services, but then, if you're only on holiday I expect it probably would class under 'emergency only'.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> It's a long time since I've been anywhere. I assumed you could get some gp services, but then, if you're only on holiday I expect it probably would class under 'emergency only'.



lots of places have walk in clinics where anyone can go, but there's often a fee for them


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> That's total shit.  I just assumed they had something like the E1 11 or whatever that means you can get free treatment abroad.



There's a difference between getting free NHS GP services, ie. registering as an NHS patient at a GP surgery, and emergency NHS healthcare though.

The EHIC (the new E1 11) doesn't actually guarantee you free at point of access healthcare in other countries, it gives you access to the same state provided healthcare as the citizens of that country and in some countries, they pay for certain services.

And it is an 'emergency' card for use by travellers and holiday-makers, you can't use it if you are resident in another EU country.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> so you wouldn't be bothered they were getting paid peanuts and slept and ate on the job? ie they moved into your house until the job was done.



So long as the work is carried out correctly according to the specification in the tender, then no. My contract is with the building contractor and who I choose to carry out that contract is no business of the gardener, chauffeur or any other of my employees on my site.

Just like the Lindsey refinery........

from the BBC Report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7859968.stm

"Unite regional officer Bernard McAuley told Friday's rally in Lincolnshire: "There is sufficient unemployed, skilled labour wanting the right to work on that site and they are demanding the right to work on that site."

How does he know whether there are any suuitably skilled locals? Did Unite bid for the business and submit a tender response?


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Still absolutely nothing on the SWP website, just Gaza, so much for 'efficient' democratic centralism, the comrades are also absent here, waiting for the party line?, 

so, so transparent


----------



## gosub (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> For the purposes of getting a job, I have equal access to employment across the EU. I wasn't talking about services such as health, nor was I talking about voting rights. That some countries add protectionist legislation at a local level that I might have to overcome (which all EU nations do, for example, in terms of working for government for example) is irrelevant - I can work, visa free, in any of the 25. This, therefore, is the labour pool that people are working in.



European Law does enshrine your rights in doing so, as it does for Investment funds and companies as they have in various legal cases been lumped as single entities with the same set of individual rights. Unions on the other hand aren't, they are constrained by national laws and therefore geocentric. they can only be force for nationalistic tendencies. 

Racism and Nationalism need not be synonymous.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> The first part is incorrect, you have the same access to the health system of the country you live in within the EU as nationals of that country.



No you do not. That is factually wrong. Each country is different. E.g. for those who retire to France before they are 65... 

http://www.perigordvacance.com/2007/10/french-health-c.html

From the above link, regarding a letter written to our own government (Alan Johnston), so can see the letter and response in full:




> As you are aware, the French have changed their domestic rules on eligibility for healthcare services for people who are not working.  Some people, including those retiring to France from other European countries (including the UK) and who are not yet in receipt of a state pension, will no longer be covered by the French system and will need to take out private health insurance until they reach UK retirement age or until they qualify as a French resident (which is after five years of regular uninterrupted residence).



Kyser:



> You also have the same rights as nationals as far as work is concerned, if these rights are lacking or companies choose to ignore them that is another problem.



Once again this is an iffy statement. If you wanted to move to Poland and open a farm up, you could have problems. 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj24n3/cj24n3-6.pdf

This will come to an end, but the Poles where permitted to keep this law for 12 years. So in theory that Italian company could not buy a large area of land in Poland, ship in Italian workers and farm the land shutting out locals.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

try reading the full report and the full thread dear cobbles. There are hundreds of workers who were not available for this contract when it was originally won by the Italian firm, because they already had work.  They don't have tat work any more.

Also in your daft analogy, you omitted the fact that for the comparison to work at all, you'd have had to have had an agreement with a local kitchen builder (or whatever it was) that you wouldn't take on anyone else on inferior terms and conditions. And then you'd have had to renege on that agreement.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Still absolutely nothing on the SWP website, just Gaza, so much for 'efficient' democratic centralism, the comrades are also absent here, waiting for the party line?,
> 
> so, so transparent



did you only post this thread so you could have a pop at 'the left'?  cos that's pretty much all you've done since the op.

so, so transparent.  and fucking tedious


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

Just as the UK was allowed to set different immigration rules for the EE ascension countries - there are caveats and clauses all over, and I'm not surprised the French (you forgot to mention the Spanish health service doing the same to UK and DE nationals, altho they're being more specific in saying that those with chronic conditions on arrival won't be covered for 5 years) are doing this - in the case of retirees, we're exporting some pretty expensive patients onto what is an already massively overstretched health service (most EU health services are in bigger financial holes than the NHS).

However, it still doesn't alter the very basic fact that as an EU citizen I can move anywhere within the 25 and get a job, which is rather the point at hand in this discussion.


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> Also in your daft analogy, you omitted the fact that for the comparison to work at all, you'd have had to have had an agreement with a local kitchen builder (or whatever it was) that you wouldn't take on anyone else on inferior terms and conditions. And then you'd have had to renege on that agreement.



Why would anyone want to sign a pitifully stupid agreement like that - what benefit would I get up front from the local builder to justify a lock-in?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

belboid said:


> not dead at all, just changed in strategic and tactical methods is all. The point is still the same - to support workers _of whatever country_ to secure economic and political justice, without doing so at the expense of any other worker _of whatever country_. Workers should not be used to undermine others' terms and conditions whether they are from Turin or Todmorden.



Agreed, and you've got what I meant by dead here anyway. What I mean is that instead of seeing the EU as an 'international' it should be seen as it is, a national labour market, just as the US is.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Mutleys on line, lets hear your view?


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Why would anyone want to sign a pitifully stupid agreement like that - what benefit would I get up front from the local builder to justify a lock-in?



an irrelevant question, in one way. Whether you think the company should have or not doesn't matter, the fact is they _did_. 

Tho the fact that it would be a rather silly thing for an individual to do, but not for a massive, multi-billion pound profit-making, tens of thousands of workers employing, company just shows why yours was a stupid analogy.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> However, it still doesn't alter the very basic fact that as an EU citizen I can move anywhere within the 25 and get a job, which is rather the point at hand in this discussion.



I wasn't arguing that (although there are areas where this isn't 100% true), I was arguing the point you made about all EU nationals being equal or whatever it was a few pages back. Merely pointing out this isn't the case and these divisons will be played upon by employers who can use them for their benefit. Also to further that argument, with regards to healthcare, people here where not complaining that the tax money would be sent back to Italy as we are "all part of the EU" and it is "EU infastructure", by that reasoning the health care services in France should be open to UK retiress regardless then if it is "EU" healthcare not French?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> No you do not. That is factually wrong. Each country is different. E.g. for those who retire to France before they are 65...
> 
> http://www.perigordvacance.com/2007/10/french-health-c.html
> 
> From the above link, regarding a letter written to our own government (Alan Johnston), so can see the letter and response in full:



Of course each country is different, I didn't say you could expect equal treatment throughout the EU, what can be expected is the same treatment that a national of that country could expect. Just because the UK has free health treatment ánd therefore has to provide this to EU nationals who become residents of the UK does not mean that this should be expected elsewhere within the EU.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> what can be expected is the same treatment that a national of that country could expect.



Which that post above of mine demonstrates to be a fallacy. A unemployed Frenchman gets the health care, a retired British resident does not.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Which that post above of mine demonstrates to be a fallacy. A unemployed Frenchman gets the health care, a retired British resident does not.



because the unemployed Frenchman fulfils the requirements of the health system within France an EARLY retired EU citizen from another EU state does not, a retired person over 65 does however. This is however healthcare within the EU and not much to do with the OP.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 30, 2009)

> I wasn't arguing that (although there are areas where this isn't 100% true), I was arguing the point you made about all EU nationals being equal or whatever it was a few pages back.



My point, which like almost everyone elses on this thread you've missed, was with specific reference to the _labour market_, and since we're talking specifically about a member of the EU which has even longer membership than the UKs, your attempts to obfuscate this basic point with technical caveats centred around side issues (voting, healthcare) and specific legislation allowed to the new ascension states with reference to things like owning farms is even more tragic.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> My point, which like almost everyone elses on this thread you've missed, was with specific reference to the labour market, and since we're talking specifically about a member of the EU which has even longer membership than the UKs, your attempts to obfuscate this basic point with technical caveats centred around side issues (voting, healthcare) and specific legislation allowed to the new ascension states with reference to things like owning farms is even more tragic.



If you can not see how all of this is linked, I'm at a loss. No attempt at obfuscation on my part, and to deny that owning farms is not part of the labour market is of course wrong.
The legislation that say you can work in any of the countries, you are correct in stating is applied to ALL EU citizens, no argument on my part there. However this does not mean all workers have equal rights within EU member states as I am trying to demonstrate. Therefore to seperate the issues of workers healthcare and politcal representation from the argument for example implies that all workers are equal which is not the case, as only some legislation that applies to working/workers rights is contained in the laws governing the labour market.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 30, 2009)

http://bnp.    org.uk/2009/01/solidarity-with-the-construction-lads/

More on BNP activities and what line they are spinning


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

Anyway kyser, I think what we can agree on is this risk getting out of control and the wrong targets in this risk getting hurt.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> Workers are also angry at the pro-immigration, out-of-touch internationalism of many left-wing union leaders. Derek Simpson, general secretary of Unite is a particular target of well-deserved criticism after his ridiculous statement that “it’s not a question of foreign workers” and his treacherous suggestion that the union doesn’t mind its members being replaced by foreign workers as long as they get a chance to ‘compete’ before being thrown out of work!



When the BNP have stuff like this in their articles, you have to worry. This is exactly the kind of stuff they will be pedling to gain support. The Union leaders etc. need to make a strong stand and take leadership of this and not leave it to the BNP.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

Now this is an interesting angle....



> Bobby Buirds, a regional officer for Unite in Scotland, said the workers at Grangemouth were striking to protect British jobs.
> 
> "The argument is not against foreign workers, *it's against foreign companies discriminating against British labour*," he said. "If the job of these mechanical contractors at INEOS finishes and they try and get jobs down south, the jobs are already occupied by foreign labour and their opportunities are decreasing. This is a fight for work. It is a fight for the right to work in our own country. It is not a racist argument at all."



Guardian article on strikes

This is _very, very interesting_: that some are perceiving this as foreign companies discriminating against the British.

Oh dear....I got a sinking feeling about all this.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> When the BNP have stuff like this in their articles, you have to worry. This is exactly the kind of stuff they will be pedling to gain support. The Union leaders etc. need to make a strong stand and take leadership of this and not leave it to the BNP.




I dont get it about this whole internationalism bit. The left has taken a right spanking over the last couple of decades so surely if they want to rebuild then it has to be by going back to the grass-roots of the movement in this country and starting off by making themselves the champion of the 'ordainary' working person again ? 

And with these protests there is obviously, once again, appetetite for this sort of direct industrial action. 

I just fail to understand how some of the left can be so dismissive. If they had a large amount of support from the working classes for their internationalism then fair enough but all I see is primarily a cadre of middle class activists looking to hijack other agendas such as the enviromental movement and that of Islamic extremism. 

Yet when you get a seemingly genuine outburst of working class anger at what is unbridled capaitalist exploitation some of them cannot get away from it all quick enough. 

And then they moan about the BNP doing well. There is a vacum in terms of who white working class people look to for representation of their interests. And the BNP seem to offer the only organised group willing to fill it.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 30, 2009)

I doubt the BNP are involved. 

The whole 'we dont want foriegn workers' is the usual shit reporting by the media. Its about workers who have relied on work from Total being sidelined by the company. They are naturally angry.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> And then they moan about the BNP doing well. There is a vacum in terms of who white working class people look to for representation of their interests. And the BNP seem to offer the only organised group willing to fill it.



That pretty much sums up how a lot of people see the situation.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

Actually, this is all getting extremely interesting.

There's a comment over on CIF about this that makes a startling point.



> > I'm puzzled; as a member of the EU, we must allow free access to our jobs market for any EU citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> But this is the point: the British workers are EU workers too and they have no access to these jobs.



How is this not against EU law, or at least the spirit of EU law? There might be legislation that says you don't have to hire locals *before *EU nationals, but that is very different to saying you refuse to hire certain EU nationalities at all.


----------



## purplex (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> That would be the case if they were being employed by a British company, they aren't! If you read the article an Italian company won a contract in what is after all a European market and brought over their own people, which they are perfectly entitled to. The workers will be paying income tax on their earnings, probably (depending on the length of the job) in Italy as is their right in the EU. TBH it looks like the unions are jumping on the xenophobic, lets blame the foreigners band wagon, a very nasty development IMO.



auf wiedersehen pet


----------



## cantsin (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Still absolutely nothing on the SWP website, just Gaza, so much for 'efficient' democratic centralism, the comrades are also absent here, waiting for the party line?,
> 
> so, so transparent



why are you so concerned about what  the frickin SWP have to say ffs, these are workers taking their own action , they don't need you or anyone else worrying about who's going to '' "harness " their anger as you put it earlier , don't need student paper sellers or bureaucrats stamping out the fires , and any paper thin ideas about poorly paid foreign workers being the problem , not the bosses and bankers , will be swept aside if this builds over the next six months . 

you carry on gloating about the perceived failures of the left here all you like matey boy, it 'd what you do , but doesn't worry me, + very much doubt it'll be worrying those fighting  for their livelihoods / futures .


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

rover07 said:


> I doubt the BNP are involved.


Of course not, but they'll get involved. 

This is the biggest spontaneous worker-led strike in years.  It's caught the unions on the hop.  What are they doing?  Do they know how to respond?

It's frustrating to be out of the loop with the details of this dispute.  Things I want to know: - are the Italian workers unionised? - have the strikers sought representations with the Italian workers?  - when the California-based firm, Jacobs, won the contract, what were the terms? - what were the unions doing then? - did they seek commitments on employment, wage levels, etc? - how were the jobs filled by the subcontractor?  And so on.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Now this is an interesting angle....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You and me both, I think you'd find an Italian company as with companies in most EU countries, would welcome equally qualified, native English speakers, the only problem is the fact that very few British workers speak other EU languages, which is usually also a requirement. I know that it has been fairly easy for me to get jobs in Germany as a qualified, bilingual British person.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> How is this not against EU law, or at least the spirit of EU law? There might be legislation that says you don't have to hire locals *before *EU nationals, but that is very different to saying you refuse to hire certain EU nationalities at all.



BUT the British and the Italian workers are EU nationals and have EQUAL rights of employment within the EU, the Italian company won the contract and brought their own workforce with them for understandable reasons.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Jan 30, 2009)

Jeez, they got these Italian and Portugese workers sleeping on barges moored off Grimsby docks!

That's Victorian, and rings a bell somewhere.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Of course not, but they'll get involved.
> 
> This is the biggest spontaneous worker-led strike in years.  It's caught the unions on the hop.  What are they doing?  Do they know how to respond?
> 
> It's frustrating to be out of the loop with the details of this dispute.  Things I want to know: - are the Italian workers unionised? - have the strikers sought representations with the Italian workers?  - when the California-based firm, Jacobs, won the contract, what were the terms? - what were the unions doing then? - did they seek commitments on employment, wage levels, etc? - how were the jobs filled by the subcontractor?  And so on.



Nail and head. 

As usual the media do not report what the background to the strike is. Very frustrating. The fact that it has spread so quickly means its about wider company/worker relations. (imo) The foreign worker angle is a red herring.


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> How is this not against EU law, or at least the spirit of EU law? There might be legislation that says you don't have to hire locals *before *EU nationals, but that is very different to saying you refuse to hire certain EU nationalities at all.



most EU nations opted out of parts of the free employment market.  Germany in particular iirc, opted out of the whole thing.

when it came to Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU a couple of years ago, the UK put up greater restrictions after so many people had come over from the other new EU nations (Baltics, Poland etc) since their 2004 ascension.

so the first statement you quoted, that any EU worker has the right to any UK job, is false - Bulgarians and Romanians do not have an equal rights to all UK jobs.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Jeez, they got these Italian and Portugese workers sleeping on barges moored off Grimsby docks!
> 
> That's Victorian, and rings a bell somewhere.



You ever stayed on a floatel? They aren't so bad, but it's by the by where they are kipping I'm sure it's included in their contract which we know absolutely nothing about.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

where to said:


> most EU nations opted out of parts of the free employment market.  Germany in particular iirc, opted out of the whole thing.
> 
> when it came to Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU a couple of years ago, the UK put up greater restrictions after so many people had come over from the other new EU nations (Baltics, Poland etc) since their 2004 ascension.
> 
> so the first statement you quoted, that any EU worker has the right to a UK job, is false - Bulgarians and Romanians do not have an equal rights to all UK jobs.



Correct but the restrictions are time limited eventually the new member states will have the same rights as the rest of us. IMO a good thing.


----------



## purplex (Jan 30, 2009)

Any worker expecting favours from a private company is kidding themselves. Their obligation is to their shareholders, not their employees. Whether you believe that is morally repugnant is largely irrelevant, time and again private companies have fucked over their "loyal employees", and theyll do it again.  Its quite ridiculous to think that that loyalty is returned, it never is. Plenty of Brits benefit from European labour laws and that has to be a two way street.


----------



## London Eye (Jan 30, 2009)

From the Guardian article



> Bobby Buirds, a regional officer for Unite in Scotland, said the workers at Grangemouth were striking to protect British jobs.
> 
> "The argument is not against foreign workers, it's against foreign companies discriminating against British labour," he said.



This should be how Galloway and the left should be couching this dispute, but how is it that I'm not holding my breath? 

No matter what is being said, this is about nationalism and its shady cousin racism, and the media - owned by the same boss class who have manipulated this, are quite happy to stoke the racist elements. 

If this can happen with Europeans, what will happen when similar events occur with Africans, Asians and those from the Middle-East, all who have suffered for years through exploitation from the First World and who work in this country, if they are lucky enough to find jobs? 

Despite the fact that it is about race, the mistake that polite, middle-class left always make is to tut tut at the workers's racist attitudes, who have every right to fear for their jobs and livelihood and who are having their worst traits magnified by those who know only too well how to do this.

I do not blame the workers for looking for a scapegoat. They have been manipulated into doing so, as all workers are. Suddenly I feel all Marxist (workers of the world unite etc). The problem is not Italian workers, or the British workers it is Italian and British bosses who are the same as bosses all around the world.

As the economic crisis deepens – and those of us who have studied it know who is to blame – we must remember that the majority of workers haven't the time to work out who did what to whom. 

To those who say that the left "causes" the BNP to gain ground, I particularly detest this argument. The BNP will manipulate any sense of injustice to further their vile cause and vapid arguments.

But rather than this being because the left rightly cites racism and petty nationalism as a reason, it is more because the left is so divided, it has little time for the real fight (which MUST be against all bosses everywhere AT THE SAME TIME). And many in the centre-left are so ideologically and intellectually bankrupt and corrupted by the enemy, they cannot point to the real enemy, because they have been feeding off that enemy for years.

This enemy, who not only have led us to this financial and economic crisis, but have continued with bloody wars across the world, destroying communities and creating more anger, and using the media to keep people fighting each other and not the real enemy, has reached a point where their economic fantasy is being laid bare, and they are desperately trying to deflect attention away, anywhere but where it should be directed - at them.

Of course, we could sit around and discuss the politics and ideology and someone could try and sell a few copies of the socialist worker, and an anarchist could come along and say all socialists are scum, and then the People's Front of Judea will explain why the Judean People's Front are splitters, but the main point is that the coming economic depression (let's not piss around with stupid "credit-crunchie" names) will leave many manual, unskilled workers at the mercy of fate and resorting to desperate measures to protect their families, and both the far right and the right-wing Labour Party will seek to avoid blaming those at fault, while the far-left continues to bicker over ideological minutiae. 

The far right will say it is about race. The Labour Party won't know what the fuck to say and will make up more spin, which will then be used by the unscrupulous to tar all those who believe in justice and who have a broad acceptance of the politics of Marx without being part of any ideological grouping.

So, it is time that links are forged throughout Europe to begin with. If it is true that Italian unions have spoken in solidarity with British workers (is there a link to that?) this is a good start. I always felt that the pivotal moment that could have stopped the war in Feb 2003 was when that fat cunt union leader (not Bob Crow but another one, forget which) threatened industrial action in front of 2million people and then went back on his word. A general strike would have stopped the war in its tracks, but even many who run the unions are part of the boss class, so the organisation may have to be outside the normal channels. 

Nothing can stop the rise of mass action when it is about jobs, food on the plate and security for family. But in order for it to work the enemy must be correctly pointed to. It is not about race, it is not even about class as it is perceived (many who call themselves middle-class are going to be suffering too). It is about the "boss class" those who make and break lives with the flick of a pen, or button pushed to send an email or text.

They are the ones who need to be brought down.

Ok, OK, it's turned into some kind of "power to the people" rant. Maybe it was from the start. But it's what I feel to be the case now. 

Workers of the world unite....an stuff...


----------



## Cobbles (Jan 30, 2009)

purplex said:


> Any worker expecting favours from a private company is kidding themselves. Their obligation is to their shareholders, not their employees. Whether you believe that is morally repugnant is largely irrelevant, time and again private companies have fucked over their "loyal employees", and theyll do it again.  Its quite ridiculous to think that that loyalty is returned, it never is. Plenty of Brits benefit from European labour laws and that has to be a two way street.



Do we have any example of the overwhelming "loyalty" displayed by the employees in this case (simply turning up for work during the contracted hours doesn't count)?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

Worth remembering the European court of Justice's two recent rulings :



> which effectively outlawed industrial action where unions are trying to win equal pay for migrant workers and banned public bodies from requiring foreign contractors to pay such workers local rates.



http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/ecj-decision-laval.htm


----------



## newbie (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> There might be legislation that says you don't have to hire locals *before *EU nationals, but that is very different to saying you refuse to hire certain EU nationalities at all.



Barber from the TUC made this point in an interview for PM on R4.  

The same piece also claimed that the contract was arranged months ago, when there was thought to be a shortage of available British workers,  that the Italian workforce is one hte same pay and conditions as their British counterparts, and that the dispute arose from the potentially unlawful statement from the contractors that they would not employ British workers.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

derf said:


> The practical upshot was that all the local workers were dumped and the new people were all asylum seekers and assorted east Europeans.


I know this was ages ago in the thread, but asylum seekers aren't allowed to work. They may have been refugees, but hey, why bother to find out the difference? They've only been the target of a sustained hate campaign by right wing newspapers after all 

Okay, back to the thread


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Worth remembering the European court of Justice's two recent rulings :
> 
> 
> > which effectively outlawed industrial action where unions are trying to win equal pay for migrant workers and banned public bodies from requiring foreign contractors to pay such workers local rates.
> ...


This is absolutely central, and is the cue as to how this action needs to target its attack.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Worth remembering the European court of Justice's two recent rulings :
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/ecj-decision-laval.htm



yup, Laval is absolutely central, and a case that Amicus have been highlighting (in a very quiet way) as a ruling that has to be over-turned if meaningful cross- european solidarity can be achieved. I wonder if Simpson is being supportive of this unlawful stoppage as a first step in trying to fight it?


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> 1. TL, you're dealing with a situaiton that's been in existance since 1992 when the European Single Market came into force, meaning that anyone in an EU country could work in any other without a visa
> 
> 2. There was no uniion push in the 1990s to expand their sphere of influence into other countries, of linking up with European unions to ensure that there was the possibility of EU wide best practice for all workers.
> 
> 3. The fact that no one in the UK labour movement, nor it seems a huge chunk of people on Urban, have recognised this in nearly 20 years is no ones fault but their own. Here's a simple fact - the bosses have managed to pit workers against workers who exist in the same labour pool. Who's the ultimate winner?



I agree with you. The unions have completely failed to take the opportunities afforded by the EU for pan-European solidarity. And much of the far left in Britain has seen the EU solely as a threat - thus crippling their ability to make connections with other leftists throughout the EU.

However, we're now in the situation we're in. It's not the fault of the workers at these plants that complacent unions took their eye off the ball for decades.

You can understand the anger this has caused a lot of workers, and as long as the anger is directed towards the right targets that's fine. I really fear the intervention of the tabloids in all this though. They are going to *love* stirring up xenophobia over it.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Actually, this is all getting extremely interesting.
> 
> There's a comment over on CIF about this that makes a startling point.
> 
> How is this not against EU law, or at least the spirit of EU law? There might be legislation that says you don't have to hire locals *before *EU nationals, but that is very different to saying you refuse to hire certain EU nationalities at all.



This is a good point - on the face of it the company appears to have made an incriminating statement by saying they wouldn't hire Brits. If they'd just done it, they would have been breaking the law but no one would have been able to prove it. Now they've actually *said* it the workers should be able to take legal action. A bit weird that the unions haven't been pushing that angle a bit more.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries?  There's a word for policies like that, and not one that you'd like, I suspect.


 IB you show a basic misunderstanding of politics here .. how else then can you organise a bloody union? how else can you organise in the community? how else can we get power if we allow the bosses to take away our strenghth which is in production .. it is NOT racist it is NOT zenophobic it is about creating power


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Mosty of those who walked out appeared to be wearing flash jackets with slogans like 'british jobs for british workers' rather than 'british rates for all workers' or something like that - i've no idea if they were work provided or union provided, but there was a least one unison steward arguing along the lines of attacking foreign workers rather than employers.


and until a left, or whatever, support workers in these situations this will remain the case and in fact get worse ..


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

SWP line, come out against strikes, not very nuanced, basically, the strikers are deluded or racists..

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17004

@cantsin, rude man that you are, that was my point, the Left can not do much about this at all, with some exceptions, the SP, it abdicated from the industrial stage years ago, when the local SWP full timer went to the bus drivers picket line, awhile ago, he was told to fuck off! This is spontaneouus and is an example of workers doing things for themselves..


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> harsh words Snadge, having said that, I've scanned all the left wing blogs, etc, there is absolutely nothing on this two major days of walkouts, all illegal wildcats all one can see is about palestine. There seems to be a blanket refusal to acknowledge what is happening, I am genuinely interested to know why this is, is it too unpalatable?


 yet this dispute was festering for many months .. sums up their alienation form ordianry workers/people


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

*Housing*

I hope this photo isn't too large, but this is where they are housing the folks, I would hardly call this a floatel:







Looks pretty fucking grim.


----------



## gosub (Jan 30, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I agree with you. *The unions have completely failed to take the opportunities afforded by the EU for pan-European solidarity.* And much of the far left in Britain has seen the EU solely as a threat - thus crippling their ability to make connections with other leftists throughout the EU.
> 
> However, we're now in the situation we're in. It's not the fault of the workers at these plants that complacent unions took their eye off the ball for decades.
> 
> You can understand the anger this has caused a lot of workers, and as long as the anger is directed towards the right targets that's fine. I really fear the intervention of the tabloids in all this though. They are going to *love* stirring up xenophobia over it.




 http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230054


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2009)

good to see some Union backbone for once.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> IB you show a basic misunderstanding of politics here .. how else then can you organise a bloody union? how else can you organise in the community? how else can we get power if we allow the bosses to take away our strenghth which is in production .. it is NOT racist it is NOT zenophobic it is about creating power


I do see your logic, I really do.

Then I see the phrase 'our strength which is in production' and I think, in that case, our strength got outsourced to East Asia a long time ago. If we were aiming to be locally self-sufficient, then there would be a lot more logic to what you're saying, and I would then be willing to consider seriously the ethical issues around restrictive or open migration policies, but that's not the kind of economy we're in. We're in a European economy and a global economy, and if you carry on ignoring that then you will lose ground with every year that passes.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Be interesting to see how the ever so liberal CH4 News and Jon Snow cover it all,


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I do see your logic, I really do.
> 
> Then I see the phrase 'our strength which is in production' and I think, in that case, our strength got outsourced to East Asia a long time ago. If we were aiming to be locally self-sufficient, then there would be a lot more logic to what you're saying, and I would then be willing to consider seriously the ethical issues around restrictive or open migration policies, but that's not the kind of economy we're in. We're in a European economy and a global economy, and if you carry on ignoring that then you will lose ground with every year that passes.



Change 'production' to 'workplace' then.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

gosub said:


> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230054



That story dated 2007 I note - too little too late springs to mind. I know there are skeleton international networks for trade unions, but from the moment of the unification of the labour market the unions should already have been ready with pan-European mergers/federations to coincide with it.
Anyway, too late for all that now.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> SWP line, come out against strikes, not very nuanced, basically, the strikers are deluded or racists..
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17004



"Those who urge on these strikes are playing with fire. Once the argument is raised it can open the door to racism against individuals. Already in some supermarket warehouses the racists are calling for action against workers from abroad. 

Right wing ideas gain a hold among workers when they see their lives being torn apart and the unions offer no lead. No doubt some in Unite think it’s easier to get a fight around a slogan like “British jobs for British workers” which sets people apart than one that brings people together like “Workers should not pay for the bosses’ crisis”. That’s a doomed strategy. 

Instead of turning against workers from abroad, everyone should be organising in a united way to pressure the union leaders to fight. And if the union leaders won’t fight then workers will have to organise the resistance themselves. 

Let’s demand an end to the system where foreign workers are housed separately from the British workforce. Let’s bring workers from abroad into the unions and link arms against the bosses and their system.

Fight all job cuts
No deals that cut wages or accept lay-offs
Smash privatisation and sub-contracting
Unity against the bosses, no to racism and the BNP."

so 1) the SWP are against these strikes .. fucking disgusting .. anti working class shite .. the workers can only strike if it is socialist?? basic fucking misunderstanding of class or anger etc etc 

2) 'lets bring workers from abroad into unions' .. what even if they are being used to undercut wages?? when people see there sons and daughters and wives and husbands on the dole? WHY should communities have the bosses bus people in when there is ANY unemployment??? 
it is purely to exploit and should be opposed full stop 

they do not understand that most foreign workers are here to earn money and have no reason to commit to unions and the long term future of the communities in which they work .. i do NOT blame them in any way .. most people think and act like this .. IF migrant workers can be recruited brilliant .. but that the left think concentrating on temporaray migrnat workers at the expense of people who live work and will die here is insanity .. and the insanity that will breed support for fascism .. 

that that these strikes have been expressed zenopobically is a direct fault of the left for failing to be involved with ordianry people ..


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> I hope this photo isn't too large, but this is where they are housing the folks, I would hardly call this a floatel:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 same at the olympics and many agricultural sites .. we have let this shit go on way too long


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Change 'production' to 'workplace' then.


But do you really want to test the waters to see exactly how much of our work can be outsourced to lower-labour-cost countries? It doesn't matter whether it's physical production or service industry stuff, if they can find the skills abroad (and they can find a lot in E. Europe) then they'll move. Which leaves international solidarity, and identifying the wage-cutting bosses as the enemy whatever country they are operating in and whatever nationality they are employing, as the only option.


----------



## gosub (Jan 30, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> That story dated 2007 I note - too little too late springs to mind. I know there are skeleton international networks for trade unions, but from the moment of the unification of the labour market the unions should already have been ready with pan-European mergers/federations to coincide with it.
> Anyway, too late for all that now.



What would be the point, companies even hedge funds have rights enshirned by european law, unions don't. That case was to decide if the unions even had the right to protest against a company execising it's legal right.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> Earlier today Jerry Hicks released a statement reminding us that an emergency meeting of the national construction shop stewards forum took place in London as long ago as the 8th January. The meeting discussed the escalating crisis in construction following a series of protests in November and December of last year, over employment rights and also the proposed exclusion of UK workers by foreign companies on power stations and other major UK contracts.
> 
> The meeting was originally called for at Newark on the 3rd December following a series of protests at the gates of Staythope Power Station. At the meeting shop stewards voted overwhelmingly to organise a programme of demonstrations toward targeted construction projects within the UK power generation sector.





this didn't happen just this week its been brewing for ages, The SWP and many others were too busy with their anti-imperialism to notice.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> piss off wankstain, I got made redundant and was sick of being on the dole, working away from home for months on end has it's own downside, try it, your kids may not recognise you next time they see you and your missus is with the local hard lad.
> 
> You are the problem mate, an idiot that thinks we should earn a lot less than we do because they are jealous of our earnings, well don't worry our highly skilled jobs have been farmed out to foreign workers who are now living that dream, minimum wage here we come, paying the bankers bonuses.


you wanna watch your tongue, you fucking twat.

i'm a welder, two of my uncles are welders, some of my cousins are welders. all of us have been on the dole and none of us ever went self employed.

i'm not jealous of your earnings and i don't think you should earn less. i don't think you should have sold yourselves so cheaply.


----------



## belboid (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> this didn't happen just this week its been brewing for ages, The SWP and many others were too busy with their anti-imperialism to notice.



god, do you really have nothing to say apart from whining about the left?

How about something constructive for once?


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7859968.stm

latest from bbc


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> But do you really want to test the waters to see exactly how much of our work can be outsourced to lower-labour-cost countries? It doesn't matter whether it's physical production or service industry stuff, if they can find the skills abroad (and they can find a lot in E. Europe) then they'll move. Which leaves international solidarity, and identifying the wage-cutting bosses as the enemy whatever country they are operating in and whatever nationality they are employing, as the only option.



That's got nothing at all to do with my post as far as i can see. I don't know what you think i'm arguing. 

The phrase (and the tactics that should therefore follow) 'Our strength is in the workplace'  (not solely of course) is all i was talking about - and _international_ chains of production, distribution etc are still today (maybe even more than ever) threatened by actions in the workplace, one small walkout can stop a huge global chain in its tracks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2009)

> Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said he hoped workers would return to work quickly after making their point.



twat. How about they return to work when they stop being sold out for cheaper workers, you dick salmon.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> It must be annoying to be part of the modern British left.
> 
> You bemoan the lack of unity amongst the working classes and then when they do show some of it, well its all a bit awkward.
> 
> LOL.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

discokermit said:


> you wanna watch your tongue, you fucking twat.
> 
> i'm a welder, two of my uncles are welders, some of my cousins are welders. all of us have been on the dole and none of us ever went self employed.
> 
> i'm not jealous of your earnings and i don't think you should earn less. i don't think you should have sold yourselves so cheaply.



we didn't, we have fought for blue book pay WHEREVER and WHOEVER we work with.

Do you receive blue book rate, are you asme9 coded?

You do know on most contracts there is no other option except being self employed.


----------



## purplex (Jan 30, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> that the left think concentrating on temporaray migrnat workers at the expense of people who live work and will die here is insanity




They are entitled to work and live here, these are no more local jobs than the German construction jobs in the 1980s were German jobs. We exist in a European marketplace.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> How about something constructive for once?




Its a very constructive point Belboid and no amount of ad homs will obscure it, people like Durrutti have been pointing out this deficit in the domestic arena for years. Its going to be very hard for the left to make sucessful interventions now and that is worrying.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> They are entitled to work and live here, these are no more local jobs than the German construction jobs in the 1980s were German jobs. We exist in a European marketplace.





All hail the neo-liberal


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

Stoat Boy said:


> Why ?
> 
> Now apologies if I come accross as being a bit dumb but I get confused by the British left. If I read them rightly then they dont like globalisation ? Yet seem to be saying that this issue of British workers being denied jobs in this country is irrelevant because its all a wider global struggle ? A sort of socialst globalisation ?
> 
> ...


 ^^ yes it SHOULD be .. think global act local .. you will not change fuck all unless you sort out where you live .. the swp type left have pretty well abandonned the w/c .. and this is the consequence


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

purplex said:


> They are entitled to work and live here, these are no more local jobs than the German construction jobs in the 1980s were German jobs. We exist in a European marketplace.


 yes they are entitled . i have NO problem with migrants .. my issue is that IF you want a better world you will only get it by starting to do it where you live .. we have allowed the bosses for years to put people out of work while employing migrants on cheap labour .. with the resultant loss of union and w/c power and resultant cynicism and reaction in the w/c


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> ye sthey are entitled . i have NO porblem with migrants .. my issue is that IF you want a better world you will onlty get it by starting to do it where you live .. we have allowed the bosses for years to put people out of work while employing migrants on cheap labour .. with the resultant loss of union and w/c power and resultant cynicism and reaction in the w/c



Its ok starting local, but it shouldn't stop there only EU wide coordination of unions can hope to be effective against exploitation.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It seems to be spreading all over the place.
> 
> I thought the left here would be jumping up and down with joy now that the workers have gone out on strike against neo-liberalism
> 
> ...


 spot on


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> Because if you stick with "local jobs with local people"one this will very easily be manipulated into "British jobs for British workers" and is an argument that plays into the hands of th right. who have no interest in taking the side of the worker.
> 
> Secondly its an argument where the solution is easy. Local workers work for competitive (lower) wages.
> 
> If we continue to frame the argument this way. We _will_ lose.


 no .. without talking about local jobs for local people you WILL end up with nationalism ..  and this shows this .. the left have NO response to these issues but an irrelevent call for unity .. so the right take over 


local people do NOT work for lower wages .. when you have local peopel employed you have unions when you have unions you have power and better wages and better politics 

THIS is a lesson that has been forgotten by the left


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

I've just watched the BBC news coverage of the dispute

"British jobs for British workers" don't you want to smack that fucker Gordon Brown in the face


----------



## where to (Jan 30, 2009)

any more details about this march next week on parliament? 

any link up with the G20 stuff:

http://www.youthfightforjobs.com/


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

purplex said:


> They are entitled to work and live here, these are no more local jobs than the German construction jobs in the 1980s were German jobs. We exist in a European marketplace.



so WHY is there disparity in pay?


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Quite simply, the strikers are reactionary scumbags making racist demands, who i am quite content to be sacked ont he spot. Britsh jobs for british workers- yeah right
> 
> The biggest shame in the local unions which have pandered to racism rather than confronting it
> 
> ...


 grow up .. you are totally out of touch, ignorent of peoples feelings etc etc i thought you had more sense jim


----------



## discokermit (Jan 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Don't be so stupid - if you can't see that following the early 80s period of mass unemployment capital practically forced certain workers (from dying trad industries largely) into self-employment in order to bear most of the risks and costs of the less profitable areas of their business then you're living in the past. Automatically viewing the self-employed as being the enemy in 2008 is dinosaur bollocks.


were they fuck forced. if no one went along with it, it wouldn't have happened. i bet they were forced to buy their fucking council houses as well.

you're right, they aren't the enemy. but i work with three hungarians, six white british, three jamaicans, one portuguese, one indian/jamaican, one black zimbabwean and one mauritian. there has been some tension at work recently as the hungarians are very good and making some of the others look a bit shit. i've had to deal with a few arguments that have cropped up here (not as skilled, not as aware of health and safety, etc.) which have all been bullshit.

on another note, we've just got a contract in the south of france. french jobs for british workers?


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Look, if you failt to say, as the Uniosn shoudl be , that foreign workers are welcome here, to live and work, its a slippery slope to sacking foreign workers and replacing them with british ones. For Internationalists, a workers place of origin is irrelevant
> 
> These strikers, despite what they say, want British Jobs for British Workers- and that is a racist sentiment


 why should workers welcome cheap foreign labour? this is nonsense .. unions shold oppose ANY cut in wages and particulalry in situations like this therare absolutely right to walk out 

that people use the terms british is due to the absence of the left from working class communities for 20 and more years


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Why? Cant you get it that Racism and Nationalism are at the heart of the workers arguement here.
> 
> Pandering to these racist arguements in exactly the reason why the BNP got 27% in Newcastle last night


 no you dope it is cos there is no left who will support ordinary people warts and all


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Post By Nick Griffin on this all on BNP website
> 
> "This grass-roots movement by British workers in defence of British workers has the potential to spread like wildfire. We need all BNP and Solidarity members and supporters working in refineries, power stations (the Truth Truck got a great reception from the thousands of workers streaming in to Sellafield in Cumbria this morning) and on construction sites generally to raise with their workmates the idea of sympathetic walkouts. Spread the word!
> 
> The combination of the news of industrial action against imported scab labour in East Lindsey, and the 300% surge in the BNP vote in Newcastle, will make Thursday 29th January a key date in the coming victory of our brand of moderate but uncompromising nationalism".


 so why has SW not called for the same?? why was socwok not wokring in these communities years ago? why was sw not stopping this attack on the workers last summer when it was annoucnced??


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 30, 2009)

So the EU says that anyone from any part of the EU can work in any other part of the EU but not that they should be paid the same as local workers? 

If not then that's shit for people who work in other countries as they can be exploited and shit for the local workers as they might lose their jobs both in the name of a few more quid profit.

Surely this needs to be amended? I'm surprised this isn't already legislated tbh, seems pretty obvious stuff.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Its ok starting local, but it shouldn't stop there only EU wide coordination of unions can hope to be effective against exploitation.


yes 100%


----------



## purplex (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> so WHY is there disparity in pay?



Because communism never caught on


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> So your against British jobs for British workers then?
> What is the opposite of that? And doesnt that play into the hands of the  right who have no interest in taking the side of the worker?
> 
> People on the Left really need to get real when it comes to understanding the effects of economic migration.



Yeah. I'm against the demand and indeed the idea of British jobs for British workers.

It is, as I keep saying, falling into the trap of "divide and rule".

If we must bandy crass slogans around "workers of the world unite" is far more likely to lead to a victory here.


----------



## chilango (Jan 30, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> So the EU says that anyone from any part of the EU can work in any other part of the EU but not that they should be paid the same as local workers?
> 
> If not then that's shit for people who work in other countries as they can be exploited and shit for the local workers as they might lose their jobs both in the name of a few more quid profit.
> 
> Surely this needs to be amended? I'm surprised this isn't already legislated tbh, seems pretty obvious stuff.



I earn more than my colleagues who are employed locally in the same workplace.

That is wrong too.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> so WHY is there disparity in pay?



because British wages haven't been reduced enough yet


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

purplex said:


> Because communism never caught on



don't be dense, the disparity in pay for a trade but then you knew that.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> because British wages haven't been reduced enough yet



Do you think this is a good thing?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 30, 2009)

snadge said:


> Do you think this is a good thing?



I said it with tongue somewhat in cheek but tried to point out a danger of demanding parity, it can go both ways.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 30, 2009)

chilango said:


> I earn more than my colleagues who are employed locally in the same workplace.
> 
> That is wrong too.


Not for the same job though? As that's against the law.

http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewsubsection.php?sun=23


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> I said it with tongue somewhat in cheek but tried to point out a danger of demanding parity, it can go both ways.



It has already gone that way, that is what this action is about.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

Indymedia seems to have nowt about it on their front page?
Is there any other articles someone can point me towards with a bit more info on whats happening on the ground?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 30, 2009)

This really is globalisation in action. A French company with bases in England uses an American company who hire an Italian company who hire Italian labour to come to Enlgand to work for the French company.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 30, 2009)

Article by the SP

Interesting bit in bold.



> Construction workers strike spreads
> 
> Thousands of construction workers in oil refineries and other major
> utilities sites are on strike.
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 30, 2009)

> The Socialist Workers Party has issued a statement on the walkouts in construction. The full text follows.
> 
> Thousands of workers at around 20 construction sites and refineries across Britain have walked out on unofficial strike. At the centre of the strikes is the claim that foreign workers are taking the jobs of British workers.
> 
> ...


 what SW actually says.


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 30, 2009)

> Those who urge on these strikes are playing with fire. Once the argument is raised it can open the door to racism against individuals. Already in some supermarket warehouses the racists are calling for action against workers from abroad.



So what is their plan? Sit on their hands and pontificate from the side lines? If they are worried about the BNP why aren't they getting involved and pushing things in the right direction?


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> So what is their plan? Sit on their hands and pontificate from the side lines? If they are worried about the BNP why aren't they getting involved and pushing things in the right direction?



Sitting on the sidelines shouting RACIST.....


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jan 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Article by the SP
> 
> Interesting bit in bold.



The bold bit you quote isn't very interesting. This bit is:



> There were mass meetings in the Lindsey and Conoco refinery sites in
> Yorkshire and Lincolnshire today and Socialist Party members were well
> received with 18 copies of the Socialist sold.



Mass meetings and 18 whole copies sold. Good luck to the, er, six-strong strike committee.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

does anyone else think that the 'british jobs for british workers' thing is getting such a high billing because gordon brown made himself a hostage to fortune with that comment.

if i was one of these workers involved looking to attack the govt on what was affecting my ability to feed my family i think such a pronouncement would be something i would latch on to regardless.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

Scuffles broke out tonight at Waterford Crystals as 400 workers were sacked by text!


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> The strikers are racist scum, and need to be took on, the same as the BNP.
> I therefore call for a demo by the UAF and the SWP, to take on the racists.
> 
> I would go myself, but I am stuck in rural Scotland and not in the best of health.
> ...




Jim Page has just posted this on IUK, perhaps he would like to go into more depth here, so, we are not mistaken that he is a stupid useful idiot who will make things ten times worse.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Jim Page has just posted this on IUK, perhaps he would like to go into more depth here, so, we are not mistaken that he is a stupid useful idiot who will make things ten times worse.



So he is advocating violence from the left against picketing tradesmen, what a cunt, I notice the cunt is too scared to go himself.

Anyway what chance have SWP members got against a load of rufty tufty contractors if they did all go down for a rumble.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2009)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> The bold bit you quote isn't very interesting. This bit is:
> 
> 
> 
> Mass meetings and 18 whole copies sold. Good luck to the, er, six-strong strike committee.



I was just thinking that myself!


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> Jim Page has just posted this on IUK, perhaps he would like to go into more depth here, so, we are not mistaken that he is a stupid useful idiot who will make things ten times worse.



wanker

eta - jim page


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

Dan U said:


> does anyone else think that the 'british jobs for british workers' thing is getting such a high billing because gordon brown made himself a hostage to fortune with that comment.


Yes, partly.  And Cameron has made a play of it, too.  Just saw him on the news saying Gordon's "BNP slogan" has come back to bite him.  The thing is, Cameron doesn't really want "British jobs for British workers" any more than Brown does: they want a malleable labour market:




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Employment Minister Pat McFadden said the Prime Minister's promise of "British jobs for British workers" at the Labour Party conference in 2007 had not meant that UK firms would be encouraged to flout European laws on free mobility of labour. (BBC)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2009)

That's obv *not* jim.


----------



## brix (Jan 30, 2009)

Just watching this on Newsnight.  It's really frightening.  Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.  I'd be horrified if my union took park in the organisation of a protest that was so xenephobic.  Why aren't they protesting against the real problem - the undercutting and undermining of workers rights and wages?  The tone of their protest makes my blood run cold.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

On Newsnight, a LP MEP has pointed out the Govt blocked a social clause in the Lisbon Treaty, I think NL are going to be in real trouble over this.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

@Brix, 

history moves on: the age of defeat and liberal hegemony over globalisation may be over.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.


So they should be.  Although it's unlike them to be all that keen on worker-led action.


----------



## becky p (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> Just watching this on Newsnight.  It's really frightening.  Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.  I'd be horrified if my union took park in the organisation of a protest that was so xenephobic.  *Why aren't they protesting against the real problem - the undercutting and undermining of workers rights and wages?*  The tone of their protest makes my blood run cold.



Don't you think they are protesting about the undercutting of workers rights and wages?


----------



## brix (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> So they should be.  Although it's unlike them to be all that keen on worker-led action.


I would agree they should be involved in a protest over the undercutting of their members' wages.  But to have their flags flying in among hundreds of laminated cards with the slogan "British Jobs For British Workers"?  Like I say, I'd be horrified if it were my union.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> Just watching this on Newsnight.  It's really frightening.  Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.  I'd be horrified if my union took park in the organisation of a protest that was so xenephobic.  Why aren't they protesting against the real problem - the undercutting and undermining of workers rights and wages?  The tone of their protest makes my blood run cold.



, blame Gordy then......


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> Just watching this on Newsnight.  It's really frightening.  Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.  I'd be horrified if my union took park in the organisation of a protest that was so xenephobic.  Why aren't they protesting against the real problem - the undercutting and undermining of workers rights and wages?  The tone of their protest makes my blood run cold.



as butchers said on another thread about this




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> This is the thing, some people really do expect the w/c to be some perfectly formed group with perfectly correct politics (no sexism, no racism etc) before getting involved in any struggle - despite their own dogma explicitly arguing that it's through struggle that peoples attitudes are changed. You get the sense that for a few people this is their first glimpse of the w/c in all it's rowdy un-pc glory and they don't like what they're seeing one bit. (and you can bet your last dollar there were french workers arguing for job protection yesterdy on that perfect black thursday).



pragmatic and spot on imo


----------



## brix (Jan 30, 2009)

becky p said:


> Don't you think they are protesting about the undercutting of workers rights and wages?



I think they might be, but they come over as desperately xenephobic.  It undermines their argument.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> I would agree they should be involved in a protest over the undercutting of their members' wages.  But to have their flags flying in among hundreds of laminated cards with the slogan "British Jobs For British Workers"?  Like I say, I'd be horrified if it were my union.


Does your union not give affiliation funds to the guy who came up with the slogan?


----------



## brix (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Does your union not give affiliation funds to the guy who came up with the slogan?



Yeah, they do.  I know.  I'm not saying they're perfect - far, far from it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> Yeah, they do.  I know.  I'm not saying they're perfect - far, far from it.


This is the biggest worker-led spontaneous action in years. You can either wait for them all to be cleansed of political incorrectness, or you can stand should to shoulder with them and engage with them about what their grievances are, and what the root of the problem is.


----------



## brix (Jan 30, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the biggest worker-led spontaneous action in years. You can either wait for them all to be cleansed of political incorrectness, or you can stand should to shoulder with them and engage with them about what their grievances are, and what the root of the problem is.



I can't support a protest that uses that slogan as it's main message.  I'm sorry but I can't.  The foreign workers are not the enemy and this is more than just a bit of political incorrectness.  This is not the way to campaign on this issue.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> The foreign workers are not the enemy


Of course they aren't.  So, do we just tell the BNP: "OK, you lot can have these guys.  We don't want anything to do with them"?


----------



## Dan U (Jan 30, 2009)

@ brix are the workers using that message wholesale or the media?

ignoring them pushes them right in to the arms of the BNP imo

engage, discuss if you have the chance, but don't dismiss them for being desperate people trying to protect jobs and their local communities and using language you might not be 100% comfortable with.


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

brix said:


> I think they might be, but they come over as desperately xenephobic.  It undermines their argument.



oh dahlin' the rose is superb....

FUCK OFF.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

> I can't support a protest that uses that slogan as it's main message.





They are not asking you too, they have enough support anyway.


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 30, 2009)

Saw the workers from Aberthaw in S.Wales on the news. The spokesman explained that they weren't protesting against foreign workers but against the bosses- he even said that they work alongside Poles at Aberthaw and had 'taken them under their wing' and that 'we will accept more use of foreign labour if the recession blows over'. Seemed like a pretty fair line to me- but it's easy to see how this will be/is being misrepresented in the dumbed down media. 

The risk of the BNP capitalising on this must be small, after all they are banned from the trade union movement and any BNP members handing out literature at actions would be clocked straight away, i'm hoping? Plus, surely it's not a 100% white workforce, if there are a few black and Asian workers protesting as well then that's immediately workers who are excluded from joining or supporting a whites-only party.


----------



## goebfwai (Jan 30, 2009)

You can understand their anger and frustration, but in the face of job losses in the industrial sector in the order of tens of thousands,  they need to direct action at the real causes of the recession, instead of trying to scape-goat a few hundred Italian workers.  Other countries in the EU will be watching all of this, and it could cause reciprocity and increase antagonism towards British workers abroad.  How much longer before we see "Italian jobs for Italian workers" demos in Italy (and similar in other countries for that matter) and calls for "British workers to go home"?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 30, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *butchersapron*
> _...some people really do expect the w/c to be some perfectly formed group with perfectly correct politics (no sexism, no racism etc) before getting involved in any struggle._




_What strange circles you mix in._


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

apologies to Jim Page, apparently he isn't him posting, someone else trying to stir up trouble


----------



## snadge (Jan 30, 2009)

treelover said:


> apologies to Jim Page, apparently he isn't him posting, someone else trying to stir up trouble



amplifying his own stance though.


----------



## treelover (Jan 30, 2009)

aye....


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

....


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Does your union not give affiliation funds to the guy who came up with the slogan?



the slogan is racist and xenophobic when guys who fear being made unemployed say it, but okay when the PM says it seems.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 31, 2009)

British jobs for british workers words that will come back to haunt poor old gordy.but putting aside the rights and wrongs of this dispute of which i can see a lot of conflicting views .is this the start of an unrest against the downturn.You get things like honda shutting down for four months ,the workers must have in the back of their minds that perhaps the plant won't open again


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

just done a wee scan of some of tomorrows papers.

the Times are calling this the 


> dawn of new age of industrial unrest as wildcat strikes spread across UK



Jon Cruddas is in the Guardian and has written quite an interesting piece imo, featuring fairly strong criticism of the government.



> The strikes are not about xenophobia, they're about large corporations and free markets that are out of control.
> 
> Britain has lost control of key industries and their labour procurement procedures. The Lincolnshire dispute is a small symptom of a big problem. Britain is a country that no longer owns the productive processes that create its wealth. Crucial economic sectors have been handed over to unaccountable foreign ownership. The government has abandoned workers to exploitation, more concerned with making them fit the global market than in protecting their interests.
> 
> ...



the Sun seem to be running some back to the 70s theme and Trevor Kavanagh is vague but ultimately against the strikes, and warning of the consequences of a return of union power.


> The credit crunch is reviving buried grievances.  The Total protest was sparked by rising unemployment, but inflamed by foreign staff — an issue unions have ignored during Labour’s migrant invasion.  Gordon Brown promised “British jobs for British workers”.  Now, it’s claimed British workers are banned from working on UK soil by Total contractors.  This protest is only the first. Militant RMT boss Bob Crowe is desperate to widen the dispute with a rail strike.  State workers feel threatened by anger over pay, pension and job security “apartheid” between them and the private sector.  The Tories, once elected, were always going to face a return to rent-a-mob riots.  With Labour doomed to annihilation, why should union bovver boys wait?



the Independent's leader answers nothing, the main message is that "you can't do that its just protectionism with another name", and continues in an absurd manner to point out that the Grimsby unemployed can't "get on their bike" because there are no more jobs in Europe.  apparently if there were, it would be reasonable to expect them to up sticks, leave their families and go and live on a boat in Trieste or Hamburg docks for a few years....



> Nor is it realistic to talk about "getting on your bike". While Britain may be especially affected by recession, all European countries have been hit. Even export-led economies, such as Germany's, are suffering; rising unemployment precipitated strikes which brought France to a halt by strikes on Thursday. Rates of growth in the Baltic states, once the poster-children of the free market, are falling sharply, fuelling street protests.
> 
> And the knee-jerk response everywhere is the one being demanded by the protesters in Lincolnshire: preferential treatment for nationals – protectionism by any other name. It is one that, regrettably, appears to form part of President Obama's economic stimulus package for the United States, although the World Trade Organisation may have something to say about it. It also finds expression in new trade tariffs levied by India and Russia.



nothing up on the Mirror website yet, apart from this whitewash from arch-Brownite Kevin Maguire's blog:


> The walkouts over the use of foreign labour on British construction sites have been brewing for months as this and this story make clear.
> 
> The Unite union co-leader Derek Simpson has lobbied the Government, including Gordon Brown, not for a ban foreign workers(which would be wrong and is illegal) but to give local workers the chance to compete for jobs.
> 
> Energy giants sub-contract work and have been washing their hands of the issue. Those days are over. This is an explosive issue with frightening implications for race relations that needs to be defused immediately. I hope Energy Secretary Ed Miliband was on the first flight back to Britain from the Davos talking shop.



finally, the Independent also says there's going to be a car park meeting tomorrow or Monday to discuss a walkout at Sellafield. at what point do these walk outs at places like that start to cause blackouts?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

sorry to go on, but...


treelover said:


> Its a very constructive point Belboid



no, its not.  Constructive is actually proposing something useful not just going 'that's shit'. even when (as in this case) you are absolutely right that it is shit.

i also don't think it's a bad thing that the left didn't immediately pose up 'the line' on their websites.  it's a sign that they had to thnk about the correct position to take, in what is clearly a strike based upon a number of contradictory attitudes.  Who would want a kneejerk response, whether it be an unmitigated yea or nay?

That said, the SW article is shit. It's not true that the workers have blamed 'Italians or Poles or Portuguese workers', even though many of the slogans used haven't been ones that most of us would. Brown should be targetted for the use of that slogan, as he did so and was obviously lying and paying to the gallery when he did so.  For a group just to slag off the strike as being racist (which SW dont _quite_ do, but come close as damn it) just cuts them off from discussing the real issue, which is employing non-union labour on non-union terms. And that means that the soft racist attitudes which do seem to be their to some extent are going to go unchallenged, and could even come to the fore as the main focus of the strike.

Any activity the left take in response to this strike should be to ensure that it targets the gloabalised bosses rather then globalised workers.


----------



## Kaye (Jan 31, 2009)

Got to the end of page two. Has no-one thought of saying "defend our jobs, defend our rights, and if they are scabs, defend us against them, regardless of their nationality". Seems like it's an EU issue that put these workers in there (who also need the jobs) - anyone willing to admit to being pro-EU for workers rights? Thought not - despite the clamour on this website a few years ago.


----------



## Kaye (Jan 31, 2009)

belboid said:


> sorry to go on, but...
> 
> 
> no, its not.  Constructive is actually proposing something useful not just going 'that's shit'. even when (as in this case) you are absolutely right that it is shit.
> ...



(1) I think you're being a wimp. The strike is racist (no striker wants to repatriate necessarily, but it opens those ideas). But as someone who embraces the fundamental reasons the strike came about, you put yourself in the middle of the is AND why of the strike. And I would hope any left group would do that.

(2) The pious comments on what 'the left' might do reveal more about how wedded people who do little at all are to what people who do not much. It's a bit sad that criticisms are made online (and critiques are important) by people who have no intention of doing anything but commenting on the strike.

(3) The SWPs position is horrific. But they are joining the strike. And fair play to them for engaging (if they do).


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

mm, is it just me, or does that not actually make much sense?

The strike is for a number of varied and contradictory reasons, to simply call it 'racist' is to miss the point, even tho some of the slogans used veer strongly towards racism.

You have no idea what anyone on here might or might not do, so dont make lazy assumptions simply in order to justify your own position

Are they (SW) getting involved?  Nothing in that article says they are doing. If they do I hope they do in a farm more nuanced way than is expressed in that article.


----------



## Kaye (Jan 31, 2009)

Well the SWP have (apparently) sent a very significant number of their cadre - significantly depleted in recent years I grant you - to join said workers.
I will challenge your post. You start by saying it (my post) doesn't make sense then you respond to every point. I'm saying it's racist. I'm not saying there aren't very differing reasons for people joining it nor that it's for whatever reason. The same as a strike about working hours doesn't mean every person on the picket line is in favour of that slogan. So, I hope to satiate you, I think you'll agree the slogans from the workers are racist. And need to be challenged. The underlying issue needs to be challenged even more (and actually, supported).

I'm not justifying my lazy position. I'm as bad as all these people who are doing nothing too.

I've outlined my answer to 3. AFAIK. The Sparts were quickest up there.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

sorry, i meant to delete that first line after i'd re-read your post a couple of times, and made sense of it.  but it's gone 3am, and i'm somewhat inebriated and slightly lacking in cognitive abilities


[10 points to the first person to take advantage of the obvious cheap shot i've left myself open to there]


----------



## TomPaine (Jan 31, 2009)

> But to have their flags flying in among hundreds of laminated cards with the slogan "British Jobs For British Workers"? Like I say, I'd be horrified if it were my union.



For god sake... are you really surprised they are waving flags? Flags, banners, logos etc. are things people identify with. You may not like it but a lot of these folks probably do identify with their countries flag as they support sports etc. The flag represents them as a collective, just as a silly red flag represents some out of touch trots attitude to politics.
The slogans are not unsurprising either. 
They are effectively saying, jobs for our community, the community that is ruled by the same set of laws, taxed by the same government, represented by the same government.
This is often expressed in geographical terms, that is how the common man on the street see's it. Of course the BNP will capatalise on this to push their racist policies. The primary reason for this, is because the logo, icons, flags and such like that many people associate with have been excluded from the left by liberal twats who see it fit to dictate to the working masses what is acceptible. Keep the red flag flying indeed.....
Rather then reclaim iconography and move it forward with the countries attitudes in a positive manner, it has been effectively bypassed even to the point of surpressed on the left, with the byproduce of letting the utter bastards of the BNP and their ilk claim it as their own.



> The strike is racist



Hence the black people in the crowd right, or did that pass you by? 

Also the BNP I believe are all lovy dovey about "Kindred Europeans" or some similar bollocks in their round about way of saying "unless you are white and of European decent fuck off". This of course shows them to be the bullshit merchants they are, one day backing their fellow European brethen and the next sticking the knife in.. but I digress.
This has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with one set of people feeling threatened by a Neo-Liberal approach to business. 

As a side point, I wonder if the Italians will be out there supporting the British workers eventually? Might stick a big stick in the wheels of the Total .


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 31, 2009)

It does seem to be worker against worker which is sad.Also isn't wildcat strikes and sympathy strikes illegal under thatchers laws.it will interesting to see how this progreses.there are many different groups taking out of it their own slant the papers and the bnp all putting over in a way that suits their agenda


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 31, 2009)

treelover said:


> apologies to Jim Page, apparently he isn't him posting, someone else trying to stir up trouble



As a Trot taken his identity then


----------



## goebfwai (Jan 31, 2009)

Cruddas makes some good points in that Guardian article.  The issue with the Italian workers is a cause celebre, and not the real, substantive cause for protest or strike. They are being scape-goated for the failings of free market capitalism and corporate greed. The focus on the Italians though does come across as xenophobic. It is a form of protectionism, that could end up futile and counter-productive. If a nationalistic fervour for occupational protectionism runs amok throughout Europe, British workers could end up losing more jobs on the European continent than she gains over here.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 31, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> As a Trot taken his identity then



Sorry it is me. Just becasue it I occaionally take contrarian position to others on the left , liek here, doesnt mean some hacker has nicked my identity or something- which post in particular do you mean?


----------



## JimPage (Jan 31, 2009)

treelover said:


> Jim Page has just posted this on IUK, perhaps he would like to go into more depth here, so, we are not mistaken that he is a stupid useful idiot who will make things ten times worse.



Bugger, this defiantley isnt me!


----------



## JimPage (Jan 31, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what SW actually says.



So its not just me then who is worried about this strike


----------



## brix (Jan 31, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Of course they aren't.  So, do we just tell the BNP: "OK, you lot can have these guys.  We don't want anything to do with them"?



But won't the BNP will capitalise on this anti-foreign worker feeling?  So isn't this playing into their hands?



Dan U said:


> @ brix are the workers using that message wholesale or the media?
> 
> ignoring them pushes them right in to the arms of the BNP imo
> 
> engage, discuss if you have the chance, but don't dismiss them for being desperate people trying to protect jobs and their local communities and using language you might not be 100% comfortable with.



I haven't dismissed them Dan.  What I've said is that I'm worried that the unions are associating themselves with that message when they should be trying to redirect the focus of the anger.  The workers have a right to be angry, but the people they're aiming that anger at are not the cause of the problem.  



snadge said:


> oh dahlin' the rose is superb....
> 
> FUCK OFF.



You know, this is why I don't post on many threads in this forum.  Engage with me or don't.  That's just a pathetic response.



treelover said:


> They are not asking you too, they have enough support anyway.



treelover, that was in response to dlr's post saying that I needed to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the protestors.  



TomPaine said:


> For god sake... are you really surprised they are waving flags? Flags, banners, logos etc. are things people identify with. You may not like it but a lot of these folks probably do identify with their countries flag as they support sports etc. The flag represents them as a collective, just as a silly red flag represents some out of touch trots attitude to politics.



What I was surprised about, as I stated clearly, is that they were holding up the union flags in amongst those hundreds of laminated cards saying "British Jobs for British People".  That shows an implicit support for that message.  My point is that I think the message that is coming out of the protests is xenaphobic, the anger is directed at the wrong people, and I am surprised and disappointed the unions are not trying to refocus the workers rightly felt anger in the right direction and at the right people.


----------



## strummerville (Jan 31, 2009)

The phrase "British jobs for British people" is a direct response to Gordon Browns use of it being thrown back at him. It's less to do with fear of foreigners and more to with the genuine fear of people losing or thinking they're about to lose work. Brown has alot to answer for using it in the first place.

The response of the British Left is dispiriting. You have a genuine working class response to something for the first time in years and they don't know how to respond. Their websites are still leading with student occupations of lecture hall in support of Gaza! All v worthy but terribly middle class and for the SWP to dismiss the walkouts with the sneering patronising tone of 'why do you think papers like the Sun are supporting it"  is misguided to say the least.


----------



## TwoTimer (Jan 31, 2009)

teuchter said:


> it's not a matter of "should" - it's an inevitable result of opening up a labour market to workers who, for whatever reason, are prepared to work for less.
> 
> What is your proposed solution, to stop this happening?



p-u-l-l  o-u-t  o-f  t-h-e  f-u-c-k-i-n-g  b-a-s-t-a-r-d  e-u-r-o-p-e-a-n  u-n-i-o-n


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

This is good.



> Hey lads,
> 
> I'm a Brit working overseas, just like many of you have done in the past - and might end up having to do in the future.  Please think carefully about how you deal with your situation.  The last thing we all want are bosses exploiting the divisions between workers that are based on nationality.  The scum that send jobs from profitable factories in the developed world to sweatshops exploiting children and wage slaves in other parts of the world would end up having a field day with all of us if they could play us off against other Europeans.  I might be wrong, but I think the tawdry sell-out leadership of the union has a lot to answer for, particularly in its continued funding of New Labour (the Tory B Team), and its backroom deals that sell out working families.  Instead, they should have been building links with effective workers organizations around the world, helping to unionize on a global scale, and taking the fight to the exploiters who tell us we're lucky to have some dead end job.  Moreover, our unions, the organizations that take our dues, also need to grow a backbone and form a new party run by workers that stands for the interests of workers.  Right now, Europe is ripe for such a party.  The massive protests in France and Greece are just a precursor for what is to come.  Ever thought of contacting and building links with those workers and strengthening a Europe wide protest against workers getting the shaft?  Sounds like a better option than having the real guilty parties. that cabal of bosses, union leadership sell-outs, and New Labor continuing to take advantage of the working class.  Just my thoughts, Digger


 
http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=126.0


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

MC5 said:


> This is good.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=126.0



hmmm


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2009)

"and form a new party"

That really makes it sound geunuine doesn't it


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> "and form a new party"
> 
> That really makes it sound geunuine doesn't it



" Hey lads..."



Quickly followed by words like "cabal" and, as Butchers points out, raising the demand for a new party....

I thought I was being overly cynical when I read it....


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

SP intervention?


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

They are so honest aren't they, "hey lads come and join our gang but we are not going to do anything"

another FUCK OFF.


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

...still, they made an effort.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> p-u-l-l  o-u-t  o-f  t-h-e  f-u-c-k-i-n-g  b-a-s-t-a-r-d  e-u-r-o-p-e-a-n  u-n-i-o-n


I find this all an interesting test of how nationalist or internationalist people are. Wages in at least some of the less wealthy countries rose when they entered the EU (see links below - not great but just the result of quick googling).

http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/Research/wp/pdf/paper342.pdf
http://www.liw.lt/archive_vid.php?shid=1121164611&id=1121163570

I'm definitely not saying that increase in income in poorer countries should come at the expense of workers in Britain, but if you care about the workers in other countries as well as the workers in Britain, then you've got to take a more nuanced view of the overall effect of the EU.

On the one hand, Britain, as one of the richest countries in the EU, can afford to give the poorer countries a leg-up. On the other hand, while we are one of the richest countries, we also have one of the biggest wealth divides, so the low-wage workers in Britain can't afford to be squeezed. 

So which is the biggest problem? 
The fact that Britain, along with the other rich EU countries, is helping the poorer countries reach a higher standard of living?
OR the fact that the wealth divide and power distribution in our country means that, in order to do so, low-wage workers are being squeezed when they really can't afford it?

I'm not sure it's the EU that's the problem, is my point.


----------



## LoveMeDont (Jan 31, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> So this is what Britain in the 21st C has come too. It sounds like something out the Victorian era.



They are the exact same type of accommodation that they have on oil rigs only housed on a barge. After having a tour around one built at SLP a few years back, I wouldn't mind living in one to be honest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 31, 2009)

Yeah, there's no problem with interventions at all, but it doesn't work _like that_, just chucking propoganda at someone out of the blue, no effort to ask what it's all about, what people are up to and why and so on.


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

As can perhaps be deduced from my posts above, this is a live issue in my workplace...disparity between local and overseas contracts etc.

We were just talking about it last night as it happens...


----------



## derf (Jan 31, 2009)

strummerville said:


> The response of the British Left is dispiriting. You have a genuine working class response to something for the first time in years and they don't know how to respond.



That's because they're fucked or scolded and they know it.
The workers are protesting about the bosses using cheap labour and dumping better paid workers. That's natural stuff for the left to oppose but in this case doing so naffs up their socialist 'all workers free to go anywhere' crap.

I'll bet the silly bastards are running round like headless chickens to try to work out the stance that fucks them the least.


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

Fuck me it's a miracle, I agree with derf.

*slaps own face*


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.

NO WE ARE NOT, we fucking told you this was the plan and you didn't fucking listen, now we have your ideal and it has been utilised to DRIVE DOWN WAGES AGAIN.

get your heads out of your arses and smell the shit you tosspots.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> "and form a new party"
> 
> That really makes it sound geunuine doesn't it


 
The z's used in some words like organization and unionize, instead of esses suggest an American influence.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

> Posted by Klendathu
> Here's how it works:
> 
> Ex 1/ British and US companies lose construction bids to Korean companies in Saudi Arabia, because the Korean companies' "workers" are actually soldiers on a pitance of military pay, doing their military service with "Dong-Ah" Construction Company, thus able to undercut normal workers and unable to have a day off without being subject to court martial. Hard to compete with soldiers being paid USD 100/Mo
> ...



This is an excellent post and eye opening post from Guardian CIF


----------



## derf (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.
> 
> NO WE ARE NOT, we fucking told you this was the plan and you didn't fucking listen, now we have your ideal and it has been utilised to DRIVE DOWN WAGES AGAIN.
> 
> get your heads out of your arses and smell the shit you tosspots.



I'm not saying this will be the case for snadge but this sort of thing will push some into the arms of the BNP and that has to be bad news for everyone.

I've said for a while that the greatest friend the BNP has is the political left.

Added - I've been called a troll a few times for that one but it remains true.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.


 
Calling for borders to go up all over Europe will not assist British workers here, or those 5.5 million British workers who are living and working abroad.


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

derf said:


> I'm not saying this will be the case for snadge but this sort of thing will push some into the arms of the BNP and that has to be bad news for everyone.
> 
> I've said for a while that the greatest friend the BNP has is the political left.
> 
> Added - I've been called a troll a few times for that one but it remains true.



I have always stated this as well, the party that promises to address this practise will gain votes, the BNP will address it by excluding foreign workers from UK contracts which IS racist but the person on the dole who regains work through that action does not give one iota and will vote accordingly.

either the maintream parties address it accordingly or the BNP gains votes.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

The SWP and its fellow travellers seem to be coming across as being more concerned with migrant workers than anyone else, this won't be a success...


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.


The question is - do you know who your enemy is and what battle you are fighting? If you've picked the right target then there's no way you could be called racist.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

Pitting worker against worker is not going to be a success for anyone, well apart from the bosses.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.
> 
> NO WE ARE NOT, we fucking told you this was the plan and you didn't fucking listen, now we have your ideal and it has been utilised to DRIVE DOWN WAGES AGAIN.
> 
> get your heads out of your arses and smell the shit you tosspots.



this has absolutely nothing to do with arguments about 'no borders'.  What we see here is nothing to do with the free movement of labour - as the post treelover copied clearly shows. Even under pre-92 rules the italian workers could, and almost definitely would, still have been brought in.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

> From SU blog
> 
> Apparently the SWP position came out after SWP comrades went to picket lines and found that arguing against the slogan BJ4BW didn’t go down too well.
> 
> ...




Apparently the SWP did a U turn after they got the cold shoulder on the picket lines, what did they expect, not surprising if this comment  by a SWP member is anything to go by(below)?



> 'I didn’t see one non-white person in any of the news coverage. This is reminiscent of the racist strikes decades ago.
> Presumably those backing these ‘Little Englanders’ are also calling for the million plus UK workers abroad to be sacked too?
> Small-minded people who don’t want to accept we live in a global village?
> Many of us have moved all over the UK to get jobs or training, other have moved all over the world. Others oppose all change and want everything to stay the same. No job is for life anymore.'


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

yawn, christ almighty, when are you going to say something about your opinion of anything the than the fucking swp?  it's sooooo fucking tedious, your attempted bullying of them.

Do you think the slogan - which _is_ a reactionary one, should not be challenged, even whilst the strike is being supported.  Should one never be critical of anyone on strike, but instead merely stand (or sit) by cheering?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 31, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> And they've got a virtual monopoly on pizza restaurants. It's a disgrace.



"I only told you to blow the bloody doors off"


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 31, 2009)

brix said:


> [a]But won't the BNP will capitalise on this anti-foreign worker feeling?  *So isn't this playing into their hands?*


*a. They'll try.  b. Isn't what playing into their hands?

I don't know what you think I'm arguing, but it isn't: "let's go get those damn Italians".*


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

I attack the SWP because whether, i like it or not , they have the resources to raise public opinion and create 'coalitions' on issues, independents/non-aligned, generally don't. They have ignored the welfare reforms which in time will lead to misery on a scale not seen since the 1930's, that to me is a disgrace.


----------



## derf (Jan 31, 2009)

The problem that the SWP share with all the left wing groups is that they have no understanding at all about people and the way they think.
They spout all that crap about equality and rights of the workers but when there is a conflict of interest the workers don't give a fuck about high minded principles but do give a fuck about loosing their job.



> I didn’t see one non-white person in any of the news coverage



So what? Maybe it wasn't an area where not many non whites live.
Places like that do exist but it doesn't mean that all there are a bunch of racist bastards. The left tend to assume it does and, in doing so, get right up the backs of the people who live there.

I'll say it again. The left are the best friends the BNP have and are helping them become electable.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> I have always stated this as well, the party that promises to address this practise will gain votes, the BNP will address it by excluding foreign workers from UK contracts which IS racist but the person on the dole who regains work through that action does not give one iota and will vote accordingly.
> 
> either the maintream parties address it accordingly or the BNP gains votes.


so, if you were on the dole, you would vote bnp?


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

Spanish paper El Pais is running a story on this, i don't speak Spanish but its clearly talking about the BNP and a what they call a xenophobic aspect to the strike:

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/inte...Reino/Unido/elpepuint/20090131elpepiint_3/Tes

i wonder if there are any Brit contractors over in Spain right now, i could see a bit of tit for tit coming out of this the way its being played out/ reported.


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

> ...yesterday Italian workers were being called 'Wops' and every other name under the sun as they were driven into work - at least, that’s what I’ve heard from comrades who were actually there on the picket lines. How will you be engaging with that when you all visit the picket lines?
> http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3494#comments Post#125


 
Anyone confirm this? If true, needs to be stamped on.

* Fight all job cuts
* No deals that cut wages or accept lay-offs
* Smash privatisation and sub-contracting
* Unity against the bosses, no to racism and the BNP.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 31, 2009)

Surely the slogan has simply been lifted from Brown's 2007 speech. If he hadn't said it then these workers probably wouldn't be banging on about it.

So to say that the striking workers are racist is rather simplistic IMO.

Having said that, a more nuanced message needs to start getting through otherwise the BNP are going to have a field day.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> Surely the slogan has simply been lifted from Brown's 2007 speech. If he hadn't said it then these workers probably wouldn't be banging on about it.
> 
> So to say that the striking workers are racist is rather simplistic IMO.
> 
> Having said that, a more nuanced message needs to start getting through otherwise the BNP are going to have a field day.


after first discovering this dispute on the uk welder forum, i don't think the phrase is being used as an ironic jibe at brown at all. most of the posters seemed to be quite genuine about the demand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> Fuck off tossbag.
> 
> What does it take for the left to get off their racism mantra.



A smack behind the knees with a bit of scaffold pole, usually.


----------



## JimPage (Jan 31, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> Having said that, a more nuanced message needs to start getting through otherwise the BNP are going to have a field day.



They aleady are- as stated by most of the media today Nick Robinson of the BBC was saying so today, as was Blunkett on BBC any questions yesterday. Their leaflets have already been going out, as have their poster trucks   

Thing is they are they have been beaving away at communities for years now. They are going to have people in those places of work, agitating form inside, if not members then voters who understan full well what "british jobs for british workers" implys. Take, for example, sellafiled, where BNP have been out. A good % of the workers there are likely to come from Whitehaven, where they just polled 40%, so when something like this comes alomng, they are ideally placed to exploit this. 

If you want anyone to blame for this debacle, blame the left for failing to organise in these communities and workplaces


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 31, 2009)

Can someone please define "the left" for me? Apparently this is their fault, so it'd be useful to know who to blame.

Many thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Jeez, they got these Italian and Portugese workers sleeping on barges moored off Grimsby docks!
> 
> That's Victorian, and rings a bell somewhere.



Sure you're not thinking of the Napoleonic-era use of prison hulks moored in just about every major port?


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

This really is going to end in tears at this rate.

Lets put this straight right now.

1/ The bosses are the enemy not other workers.

2/ You cannot win a °British jobs for British workers demand"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> You ever stayed on a floatel?



No, but I've stayed in a *broth*el. Does that count?


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

discokermit said:


> so, if you were on the dole, you would vote bnp?



I don't vote and if I did it wouldn't be BNP.

I'm still waiting to hear if you get paid NAECI rate for your job.


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

where to said:


> Spanish paper El Pais is running a story on this, i don't speak Spanish but its clearly talking about the BNP and a what they call a xenophobic aspect to the strike:
> 
> http://www.elpais.com/articulo/inte...Reino/Unido/elpepuint/20090131elpepiint_3/Tes
> 
> i wonder if there are any Brit contractors over in Spain right now, i could see a bit of tit for tit coming out of this the way its being played out/ reported.



I haven't got time to translate the whole piece for you now, but the article talks about strikes against the employment of foreign workers, it says the dispute has xenophobic tints and that the strikers are calling for protectionist measures by the British govt, It does quote people from the strike/union who deny that it is against foreigners and has an aside about the BNP exploiting economic problems.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> p-u-l-l  o-u-t  o-f  t-h-e  f-u-c-k-i-n-g  b-a-s-t-a-r-d  e-u-r-o-p-e-a-n  u-n-i-o-n



Yeah, because that would make a long-term difference to exploitation, wouldn't it? 

More sensible to c-o-n-c-e-n-t-r-a-t-e-o-n-e-r-o-d-i-n-g-c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m so that exploitation doesn't just shift from one exploiter to another, surely?


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> Can someone please define "the left" for me? Apparently this is their fault, so it'd be useful to know who to blame.
> 
> Many thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2009)

Now, any of our Urban bookies wanna offer odds on whether there'll be any anti-union legislative measures in the next Queen's Speech?


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> I don't vote and if I did it wouldn't be BNP.
> 
> I'm still waiting to hear if you get paid NAECI rate for your job.


you said "the BNP will address it by excluding foreign workers from UK contracts which IS racist but the person on the dole who regains work through that action does not give one iota and will vote accordingly.", so, is this not true then?



i don't even know what the rate is, to be honest. i've never done any subcontract work.


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

discokermit said:


> you said "the BNP will address it by excluding foreign workers from UK contracts which IS racist but the person on the dole who regains work through that action does not give one iota and will vote accordingly.", so, is this not true then?
> 
> 
> 
> i don't even know what the rate is, to be honest. i've never done any subcontract work.



It is not sub contract work

CAT1 site rate, new steel £14 hr, OTrate1 £19.59, OTrate2 £25.18.

National guaranteed rate, this is the minimum  you should get in workshop for example, £12.70, £17.76,£22.83

On top of that there should also be a hourly paid bonus and your welders allowance for your certs.

If you are not, you are part of the problem by working for less than the agreed rate.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> It is not sub contract work
> 
> CAT1 site rate, new steel £14 hr, OTrate1 £19.59, OTrate2 £25.18.
> 
> ...


i'm on £14/£21/£28, soon to be £15/£22.50/£30. no bonus but no certs for welding either (eitb apprenticeship and c+g 1, 2 +3 mech eng. though). i'm in the workshop all the time now as i refuse to go on site (too cold, too much of a pain in the arse).

so, bit more then. very rarely do overtime though.


----------



## e19896 (Jan 31, 2009)

belboid said:


> sorry, i meant to delete that first line after i'd re-read your post a couple of times, and made sense of it.  but it's gone 3am, and i'm somewhat inebriated and slightly lacking in cognitive abilities
> 
> 
> [10 points to the first person to take advantage of the obvious cheap shot i've left myself open to there]



so what be the reason you give for your bullying of posters on urban 75, you can make all the nasty vindictive comments you like about myself, i have a pride in being underclass, a pride in being scum.

however you are causing real hurt and upset to others with nasty crass comments and no exchange of thought, in words you are no better than the swp who use the same rules of exchange, when there is no real defence for their position or argument, when it is full of shit.

there is no side to be taken here, reason for my absence on this post and it shall remain the same, only reason for posting is the bullying from you belboid, i dislike bullies, theyre cowards who have no real argument, who need to scapegoat another for their own weakness, this is what you are doing.

please do not let this comment de-rail the subject, i read with interest and agree with some of the post here, but i will not abide bullying of any kind are we clear on that point at least belboid?


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

lol, yes my dear hypocrite. whatever.


----------



## belboid (Jan 31, 2009)

I've seen various reports on blogs etc that are talking about explicit racism from some of the strikers. they're not from people I'd say were always accurate, or unbiased, but the number of them is worrying. Including threats to sink the 'floatel' and calling the Italians 'a bunch of wops'. 

I'd be surprised if that attitude was commonplace considering the explicit rejection of such attitudes by every worker that was interviewed on the news over the last couple of days, but it can't be ruled out.  It'll be a fucking disaster if it is true, and will probably split the strikers down the middle too.


----------



## e19896 (Jan 31, 2009)

belboid said:


> lol, yes my dear hypocrite. whatever.



do it to my face, and then lets see who is a dear hypocrite, and are we talking about myself or your actions on a keyboard your full of shit, and i have no hassels in faceing myself and talking direct to people, i need not a keyboard becuase what i used to be ie a bully like you and where i find myself right here right now, is very much difront to the cowerd you are, just point out where you think i have acted like a cowerd here or any where and lets have a conversation, time is the underclass stood up to lefty bullshiters like yourself.


----------



## newbie (Jan 31, 2009)

Does anyone better informed than me know:

1 are these Italian/Portugese workers actually crossing picket lines?
2 are they members of unions in their own countries?
3 what have the relevant Italian/Portugese unions said about this dispute?


----------



## sonny61 (Jan 31, 2009)

The fact is, there is nothing the government can do. The Italians have a legal right to work in the UK as members of the EU.
It is globalisation.  I don't like it, but that is how it is.
I am afraid multi cultural societies only work well in good economic times. The shit is hitting the fan, and when people lose their jobs, and see foreigners working, when they are not, their reactions are not very pc.
I don't think a bunch of lefties appearing on the picket lines will help. Being told how they are getting it wrong, by a 20 year old middle class SWP member, would not go down well.
Telling them their racists, is likely to get you a smack in the mouth.

The far left are useless, they have not got a clue about the working classes. People care more about their jobs than events in Gaza. In fact I would go as far to say, most workers could not give a flying shit what is happening in Gaza.
The far left meanwhile still carry on in their own little world. They should stick to protesting about Israel, or Iraq, and stay away from the real world.

Our government will have to sit this out, and hope it will fizzle out when the workers need to go back as their money begins to run out.


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> In fact I would go as far to say, most workers could not give a flying shit what is happening in Gaza.


that is properly bollocks, you ignorant twat.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 31, 2009)

e19896 said:


> time is the underclass stood up to lefty bullshiters like yourself.



fuck mw the 'underclass' has internet access - sell out or what?


----------



## sonny61 (Jan 31, 2009)

discokermit said:


> that is properly bollocks, you ignorant twat.



Evidence! I don't mean students taking over class rooms either.
 Did I miss something? At this very moment are thousands of workers striking against the Israeli war? Are thousands of workers having sit ins at their place of work?

The only strike I see, is the subject of this thread.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 31, 2009)

A 'racist' strike?

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/01/racist-strike.html

"But, somewhat surprisingly, it is left to the Daily Star(!) to show this dispute is about class, not race. An anonymous scaffolder tells the soaraway Star “we need to make a stand now. This is not a racist protest. I’m happy to work hand-in-hand with foreign workers, but we are not getting a look in. There are guys at this site who had been banking on that work and then it gets handed to an Italian firm. It’s about fairness.” No doubt some of these workers will have attitudes a lot less enlightened than the chap above."


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

a SP guy is going to pass on his picket line experience tomorrow, which contrary to press reports of a nre third reich, and quite promising.

watch this space


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

sonny61 said:


> Evidence! I don't mean students taking over class rooms either.
> Did I miss something? At this very moment are thousands of workers striking against the Israeli war? Are thousands of workers having sit ins at their place of work?
> 
> The only strike I see, is the subject of this thread.


we have had lots of discussions about it at work (a fabrication workshop in croydon). lot's of people were outraged and disgusted.

you said they couldn't give a shit, so that is clearly bollocks, from a personal point of view.

do you think working class people are too ignorant and stupid to see past their own borders? too selfish to care about anything other than their own immediate financial situation. you think they can't think about two things at once?

your comment is an insult to working class people.


----------



## Brainaddict (Jan 31, 2009)

Look, it's very simple, at least in my mind, and I'll share it with you even though you don't care. So here we go:

If you see the foreign workers as the appropriate target for your anger, you are at best nationalist and misguided. At worst you might be racist, but without knowing people in person how are we to judge?

If you see the exploitative bosses as the appropriate target for your anger, then get the fuck on with opposing them and organising workers to campaign for better pay and conditions, and don't talk about the 'problem of foreign workers'. The foreign workers are not the problem.

As for the people striking, I imagine they hold a wide range of different views. Labelling the strike itself as racist is absurd and insulting.

When the strikers campaign against the bosses, they should be encouraged and helped, when they campaign against foreign workers they should be engaged with and challenged, and with any luck pulled into a debate about who is really fucking them over.

Is this really so difficult for everyone? Fuck me.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

Sadly many working class people, the C2's if you like have been remarkably absent from the whole anti-imperialism decade, on the local Lebanon demo, there were only three construxction workers, and they were polish! Some youngsters I know have said their mates persuaded not to go on the demo's

sorry, but that is the realist view...


Soony, I I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.....


----------



## discokermit (Jan 31, 2009)

treelover said:


> Sadly many working class people, the C2's if you like have been remarkably absent from the whole anti-imperialism decade, on the local Lebanon demo, there were only three construxction workers, and they were polish! Some youngsters I know have said their mates persuaded not to go on the demo's
> 
> sorry, but that is the realist view...
> 
> ...


what you on about? you asking people on demos what their relationship to the means of production is?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Look, it's very simple, at least in my mind, and I'll share it with you even though you don't care. So here we go:
> 
> If you see the foreign workers as the appropriate target for your anger, you are at best nationalist and misguided. At worst you might be racist, but without knowing people in person how are we to judge?
> 
> ...



Seems perfectly fair on a quick read.


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

I haven't seem any interviews whatsoever with the Italian workers, wonder if they have been banned from speaking to the press?


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 31, 2009)

"Italian" wasn't a different race to "British" last time I looked ... indeed, neither are races.


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Jan 31, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Look, it's very simple, at least in my mind, and I'll share it with you even though you don't care. So here we go:
> 
> If you see the foreign workers as the appropriate target for your anger, you are at best nationalist and misguided. At worst you might be racist, but without knowing people in person how are we to judge?
> 
> ...


It seems so.


----------



## dennisr (Jan 31, 2009)

Posted elsewhere:

"I just spoke to a national GMB official and he was saying that a number of agencies involved in the sector are point blank refusing to hire UK workers in a deliberate attempt to smash union organisation and drive down wages."


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Posted elsewhere:
> 
> "I just spoke to a national GMB official and he was saying that a number of agencies involved in the sector are point blank refusing to hire UK workers in a deliberate attempt to smash union organisation and drive down wages."



freedom of capital to move is unfettered, freedom of labour to move is regulated by greed.

I don't blame the italians seeking a nice wedge in a labour market where they can earn well.

Those authorities squeezing extra profit by displacing a workforce already available in situ are scum


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

> Posted elsewhere:
> 
> "I just spoke to a national GMB official and he was saying that a number of agencies involved in the sector are point blank refusing to hire UK workers in a deliberate attempt to smash union organisation and drive down wages."
> Reply With Quote




Bloody Hell, thats pretty heavy,

btw, some fantastic insights in to the industry on the Cruddas Guardian CIF article UKBlaza is a good one


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

> Total stupidity makes British patience snap
> We should be angry that the skilled oilmen of Lindsey now find themselves flotsam and jetsam on the economic tide
> Janice Turner
> 
> ...



Powerful article in the Times


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

treelover said:


> I haven't seem any interviews whatsoever with the Italian workers, wonder if they have been banned from speaking to the press?


from the Independent:



> The official line from the 100 Italian and Portuguese craftsmen billeted here since just after Christmas, was a polite "no comment" – enforced by port security guards who made it their business to escort passing journalists off the premises.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...the-eye-of-storm-keep-their-cool-1521669.html


----------



## e19896 (Jan 31, 2009)

There is no doubt the far right are highjacking this action, it is a Bourgios Anarchist wet dream come true, and the left we know what scum the Middle Class are, here is a very real direct consequence of their internationalism, read  action-against-classism it comes as no suprise to us here at underclass rising, now move along there is nothing to see, of course we hope the march on Tuesday ends up in a riot and that The working class confront the real enemy of our class The Middle Class, now would'nt that be a grand thing to see happen. The Lackeys of the state (The Police) and who they are employed to protect The Middle Class get a good kicking from an angry Working Class, this is where we need to turn our anger and not on to fellow workers, no matter the fact of whome they are they are workers living under The Ocupation of The Middle Class and until we make them history we shall never be free living in unity.


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> freedom of capital to move is unfettered, freedom of labour to move is regulated by greed.
> 
> I don't blame the italians seeking a nice wedge in a labour market where they can earn well.
> 
> Those authorities squeezing extra profit by displacing a workforce already available in situ are scum



I was looking for someone that could put it half well.

Not that DC is putting in badly, I mean that there is no good answer, it is so so so complicated and everyone feels differently about it. 
DC had the best reply to my thoughts that there was.

I couldn't type my full answer as I have had a finger bleeding everywhere due to cooking tea and its hindering


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

e19896 said:


> There is no doubt the far right are highjacking this action, it is a Bourgios Anarchist wet dream come true, and the left we know what scum the Middle Class are, here is a very real direct consequence of their internationalism, read  action-against-classism it comes as no suprise to us here at underclass rising, now move along there is nothing to see, of course we hope the march on Tuesday ends up in a riot and that The working class confront the real enemy of our class The Middle Class, now would'nt that be a grand thing to see happen. The Lackeys of the state (The Police) and who they are employed to protect The Middle Class get a good kicking from an angry Working Class, this is where we need to turn our anger and not on to fellow workers, no matter the fact of whome they are they are workers living under The Ocupation of The Middle Class and until we make them history we shall never be free living in unity.



Possibly a little judgemental of the (so called, I don't really know who they are) middle classes?
You are tarring everyone across with board with the same brushes!


----------



## e19896 (Jan 31, 2009)

kittyP said:


> Possibly a little judgemental of the (so called, I don't really know who they are) middle classes?
> You are tarring everyone across with board with the same brushes!



now did i say that of course not, and why not be judgemental of The Middle Class? i have very little time for at least 90% of them..


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2009)

kittyP said:


> Possibly a little judgemental of the (*so called, I don't really know who they are) middle classes?*
> You are tarring everyone across with board with the same brushes!



criticism of a particular spectrum of socio-economic groupings part in the disenfranchising of the socio-economic group below it is NOT an attack on individuals. Rather it is an attack on the system that perpetuates inequality along lines of earning, race, and gender.

Put more simply the mockery at 'jemimas tennis lessons' or 'tarquin's saxophone tuitions' are over simplified articulations of an entirely valid anger at the unfair shape our society takes. The aggrieved martyr stance taken by the benefiting group in our society is doesn't endear them though


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

e19896 said:


> now did i say that of course not, and why not be judgemental of The Middle Class? i have very little time for at least 90% of them..



Its a very tricky subject class..... ha ha ha! I am feel very stupid being a regular member of Urban and saying that! 

Most of the people I am close to are kinda middle classed. 
I say kinda as I am not really sure where we fit in (we are a very varied bunch and I know a lot of people I have a lot of respect for) but I would defend to the end of the earth!

IMHO you really cannot make those kind of absolutes even if you do say 90%!!

I feel sorry that you have come across such a bad bunch of people for you to form such an opinion. 

Oh and I am in no way being sarcastic.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> criticism of a particular spectrum of socio-economic groupings part in the disenfranchising of the socio-economic group below it is NOT an attack on individuals. Rather it is an attack on the system that perpetuates inequality along lines of earning, race, and gender.
> 
> Put more simply the mockery at 'jemimas tennis lessons' or 'tarquin's saxophone tuitions' are over simplified articulations of an entirely valid anger at the unfair shape our society takes. The aggrieved martyr stance taken by the benefiting group in our society is doesn't endear them though



I am not sure that you are sufficiently familiar with enumbers' posting record here.


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> criticism of a particular spectrum of socio-economic groupings part in the disenfranchising of the socio-economic group below it is NOT an attack on individuals. Rather it is an attack on the system that perpetuates inequality along lines of earning, race, and gender.
> 
> Put more simply the mockery at *'jemimas tennis lessons' or 'tarquin's saxophone tuitions'* are over simplified articulations of an entirely valid anger at the unfair shape our society takes. The aggrieved martyr stance taken by the benefiting group in our society is doesn't endear them though



But in my experience this is a very out dated view of the middle classes, they are more now bordering on the left over from the upper classes (if you are being very stereotypical). 

At the end of the day it is the individuals that make the difference to other individuals ie. you and me?


----------



## treelover (Jan 31, 2009)

Kitty, do stay on P/P, your posts are very welcome,


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2009)

kittyP said:


> But in my experience this is a very out dated view of the middle classes, they are more now bordering on the left over from the upper classes (if you are being very stereotypical).
> 
> At the end of the day it is the individuals that make the difference to other individuals ie. you and me?



of course, that is why I said it is an over simplified view. Regardless of stereotype though, the inequality does exist and tired stereotypes are frequently used in leftist discourse.

Christ I'm getting heavy *drinks more to banish the deep thoughts*


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

treelover said:


> Kitty, do stay on P/P, your posts are very welcome,



 

I am the eternal fence sitter with no conviction so I am not so sure.

Are you mocking me?


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> of course, that is why I said it is an over simplified view. Regardless of stereotype though, the inequality does exist and tired stereotypes are frequently used in leftist discourse.
> 
> Christ I'm getting heavy *drinks more to banish the deep thoughts*



I just never personally get away from the individuals and personal points of view, even to the point that I may back track and contradict myself.

I am however not naive enough to think that inequality doesn't exist. 
It is possibly (I re-iterate possibly) a self perpetuating state.  

OK, I am cooking and drinking cider so may disappear.

I never take this stuff personally, what would be the point.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 31, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> of course, that is why I said it is an over simplified view. Regardless of stereotype though, the inequality does exist and tired stereotypes are frequently used in leftist discourse.
> 
> Christ I'm getting heavy *drinks more to banish the deep thoughts*



But he's talking bollocks. As usual.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Article by the SP
> 
> Interesting bit in bold.


 good on the sp


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 31, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> But he's talking bollocks. As usual.



ah did I get sucked in by the grammatically blind poster once again.

curses


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

from Jacobs 1st Quarter Earning Call


> Strategies to Maintain 15% Growth: *Drive down costs continuously*





> Jacobs, with over 55,000 employees and revenues exceeding $9.0 billion, provides technical, professional, and construction services globally.



they also have 40 offices in the UK having bought over Babtie in 2004.

would these Italians etc be employees of Jacobs, are just contracted to them?


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

brix said:


> Just watching this on Newsnight.  It's really frightening.  Both Unite and Unison seem to be involved.  I'd be horrified if my union took park in the organisation of a protest that was so xenephobic.  Why aren't they protesting against the real problem - the undercutting and undermining of workers rights and wages?  The tone of their protest makes my blood run cold.


this doesn';t frighten me, this is great .. people finally saying enouh is enough .. and the langauge? yes i would prefer demands for workers councils but after 30 years of thatcherism life isn't always as we want it .. this is the language people use .. i see little evidence it is racist


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

brix said:


> I can't support a protest that uses that slogan as it's main message.  I'm sorry but I can't.  The foreign workers are not the enemy and this is more than just a bit of political incorrectness.  This is not the way to campaign on this issue.


 i don;t see a general message that the foreigh workers are 'the enemy' .. i see a demand for 'british jobs for britsh people' not words i would use but VERY differrent  ..


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

belboid said:


> That said, the SW article is shit. It's not true that the workers have blamed 'Italians or Poles or Portuguese workers', even though many of the slogans used haven't been ones that most of us would. Brown should be targetted for the use of that slogan, as he did so and was obviously lying and paying to the gallery when he did so.  For a group just to slag off the strike as being racist (which SW dont _quite_ do, but come close as damn it) just cuts them off from discussing the real issue, which is employing non-union labour on non-union terms. And that means that the soft racist attitudes which do seem to be their to some extent are going to go unchallenged, and could even come to the fore as the main focus of the strike.
> 
> Any activity the left take in response to this strike should be to ensure that it targets the gloabalised bosses rather then globalised workers.


  good post


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

where to said:


> would these Italians etc be employees of Jacobs, are just contracted to them?



employees of IREM.


----------



## kittyP (Jan 31, 2009)

Having read further, this sub forum is not for me.

All I have to offer is my personal opinion.
It means a lot to me but fuck all to every one else and that's cool.

I'll stick to music, films, nobbin & sobbin etc


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

derf said:


> That's because they're fucked or scolded and they know it.
> The workers are protesting about the bosses using cheap labour and dumping better paid workers. That's natural stuff for the left to oppose but in this case doing so naffs up their socialist 'all workers free to go anywhere' crap.
> 
> I'll bet the silly bastards are running round like headless chickens to try to work out the stance that fucks them the least.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

snadge said:


> One of the problems with the left and the no borders argument is that we as the workers KNEW this was going to happen but all we have had off the left is name calling and being told we are racist.
> 
> NO WE ARE NOT, we fucking told you this was the plan and you didn't fucking listen, now we have your ideal and it has been utilised to DRIVE DOWN WAGES AGAIN.
> 
> get your heads out of your arses and smell the shit you tosspots.


 yes yes yes


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Calling for borders to go up all over Europe will not assist British workers here, or those 5.5 million British workers who are living and working abroad.


 not borders but workers control mc


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

belboid said:


> I've seen various reports on blogs etc that are talking about explicit racism from some of the strikers. they're not from people I'd say were always accurate, or unbiased, but the number of them is worrying. Including threats to sink the 'floatel' and calling the Italians 'a bunch of wops'.
> 
> I'd be surprised if that attitude was commonplace considering the explicit rejection of such attitudes by every worker that was interviewed on the news over the last couple of days, but it can't be ruled out.  It'll be a fucking disaster if it is true, and will probably split the strikers down the middle too.



thats the deal though isn't it with strikes??  .. with hundreds on strike there are going to be some who are scumbags and racists .. the strike though is NOT anti italian .. it probably would have happenned if another group of brits were employed on mass a cheaper rates and segregated like this 

snadge .. would this ^^be correct iyho?

and as i say after 30 years of thatcher it is not suprising that sentiments are not entirely unionist but antagonistic ..


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

dennisr said:


> A 'racist' strike?
> 
> http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/01/racist-strike.html
> 
> "But, somewhat surprisingly, it is left to the Daily Star(!) to show this dispute is about class, not race. An anonymous scaffolder tells the soaraway Star “we need to make a stand now. This is not a racist protest. I’m happy to work hand-in-hand with foreign workers, but we are not getting a look in. There are guys at this site who had been banking on that work and then it gets handed to an Italian firm. It’s about fairness.” No doubt some of these workers will have attitudes a lot less enlightened than the chap above."


 i am lucky ( er ) enough to see the oh ah every day  .. when stuff is going on i always have a read of the opinon/articles and it is always has a strongest w/c pov of all the papers ( though the mirror has overt old labour articles) .. and it seems to be that this is due to its readership being the most w/c of all the newspapers and it has to reflect that


----------



## snadge (Jan 31, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> thats the deal though isn't it with strikes??  .. with hundreds on strike there are going to be some who are scumbags and racists .. the strike though is NOT anti italian .. it probably would have happenned if another group of brits were employed on mass a cheaper rates and segregated like this
> 
> snadge .. would this ^^be correct iyho?
> 
> and as i say after 30 years of thatcher it is not suprising that sentiments are not entirely unionist but antagonistic ..



correct.


----------



## durruti02 (Jan 31, 2009)

^^ ta


----------



## where to (Jan 31, 2009)

not sure if this has been mentioned but the BNP 'truth truck' turned up at Inningham yesterday later on in the evening driving round in circles at the picket area.

dull footage at the end of this clip:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...s+promise+of+british+jobs+to+the+test/2915577


----------



## audiotech (Jan 31, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> not borders but workers control mc


 
Just heard a call for a General Strike on talksport. Not from some ranting trot either, but what appeared to be a bolshie, working class lass from up north.


----------



## chilango (Jan 31, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Look, it's very simple, at least in my mind, and I'll share it with you even though you don't care. So here we go:
> 
> If you see the foreign workers as the appropriate target for your anger, you are at best nationalist and misguided. At worst you might be racist, but without knowing people in person how are we to judge?
> 
> ...



this


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2009)

e19896 said:


> There is no doubt the far right are highjacking this action, it is a Bourgios Anarchist wet dream come true, and the left we know what scum the Middle Class are, here is a very real direct consequence of their internationalism, read  action-against-classism it comes as no suprise to us here at underclass rising, now move along there is nothing to see, of course we hope the march on Tuesday ends up in a riot and that The working class confront the real enemy of our class The Middle Class, now would'nt that be a grand thing to see happen. The Lackeys of the state (The Police) and who they are employed to protect The Middle Class get a good kicking from an angry Working Class, this is where we need to turn our anger and not on to fellow workers, no matter the fact of whome they are they are workers living under The Ocupation of The Middle Class and until we make them history we shall never be free living in unity.



nonsense and gibberish.

you aren't helping anyone with this stuff...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 1, 2009)

Anyone with half a brain knows this whole sorry story is just a straight result of capitalism. But capitalism cant have that, has to point the finger elsewhere.

The xenophobes are being played like fiddles by the capitalist. It's as depressing a re-run of history as it is a revolting insult to the intelligence.

For whatever reason,  I really dont think the anti capitalist message is getting across to people.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 1, 2009)

So what do I do? 
I am  one sixteenth Italian and use olive oil.
I feel trapped


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 1, 2009)

Badgers said:


> So what do I do?
> I am  one sixteenth Italian and use olive oil.
> I feel trapped



Hate yourself and keeping paying your taxes to the banks?


----------



## Badgers (Feb 1, 2009)

Should I be smoking as I type?
So confused.


----------



## Citizen66 (Feb 1, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> "Italian" wasn't a different race to "British" last time I looked ... indeed, neither are races.



But as for the grand prix...


----------



## snadge (Feb 1, 2009)

> It has emerged that unions negotiating the 2004 Warwick agreement - the manifesto commitments made by Labour to the unions in return for financial backing - warned ministers that EU laws were being used to preclude domestic workers from applying for jobs in the UK.
> 
> The unions told the government that the way it had introduced the EU's "posted workers directive" - which guaranteed rights for temporary workers in EU countries - was being circumvented by foreign construction and engineering companies operating in the UK.
> 
> The 1996 directive was introduced in the UK in 1999 via a series of minor amendments to the Employment Relations Act. The unions told the government it had missed an opportunity to introduce comprehensive laws in the spirit of the directive that would guarantee a level playing field for all workers by barring the sort of exclusive practices that have triggered the current protests.





> International comparison of gross average monthly salaries paid in the construction sector
> 
> UK £2,160
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/01/british-jobs-unions-gordon-brown


so to all you left types out there with your racist slurs, FUCK OFF


----------



## MikeMcc (Feb 1, 2009)

Here's my two-penneth:

It's not so much that there are foreign workers on the site, that happens on most major construction sites.  I believe that in this case the contracting company took the piss by shipping so many across in one go and put them up in the floating barracks.


----------



## snadge (Feb 1, 2009)

MikeMcc said:


> Here's my two-penneth:
> 
> It's not so much that there are foreign workers on the site, that happens on most major construction sites.  I believe that in this case the contracting company took the piss by shipping so many across in one go and put them up in the floating barracks.



And are paying less than the previously agreed UK NAECI agreement, this is the main reason, cost cutting.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 1, 2009)

Unite leader on Sky News in 5 mins


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

Never mind the leaders, it's the feet on the ground that are going to decide where this goes. That said, ta for the heads up.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 1, 2009)

Unite "leadership" = Labour stooges.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 1, 2009)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Unite "leadership" = Labour stooges.



Did you listen to what he had to say?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 1, 2009)

What did he say?


----------



## love detective (Feb 1, 2009)

basically gordon brown is brilliant


----------



## rover07 (Feb 1, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> What did he say?



He explained that it was about how construction contracts are awarded. Firms have switched to recruiting exclusively abroad rather than a mix of British and foriegn workers. And the union had warned the goverment that this would happen. 

He said firms should have a responsibility to local workers to give them an equal oppurtunity to apply for jobs.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

Two quotes from the Observer today:

1


> Similar protests have been made at two other construction projects -a refinery in Staythorpe, Nottinghamshire, and a power station on the Isle of Grain, Kent. *In both cases, contractors working on behalf of foreign firms have said they will not use local labour*.



2


> Under EU law, the government cannot restrict migration from other member-states - *and companies cannot discriminate by nationality among EU nationals*


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Two quotes from the Observer today:
> 
> 1
> 
> ...



You read the Observer.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 1, 2009)

Its completely different to ship a whole workforce in to a few guys from anywhere in the EU turn up looking for work in Lincolnshire. 

In the latter case of course they should be allowed to do so.

In the former case its totally parasitic on the local economy/people. If an area isn't good enough to provide most of the staff then they can go somewhere else. 

If the liberals and left don't get this then they'll find that unfortunately the BNP will fill the vacuum.


----------



## newbie (Feb 1, 2009)

this isn't about legalities.  there's maybe 1 in a thousand chance of lawyers settling it.  ... anyway it's not illegal under Euro law to say they'll not use British labour, it has to be proven that they actively discriminated against one or more Brits, and given they recruit in Italy (& Portugal?) it's in their jurisdiction not the British courts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 1, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> You read the Observer.



He looks at someone else's copy, I expect.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> thats the deal though isn't it with strikes??  .. with hundreds on strike there are going to be some who are scumbags and racists .. the strike though is NOT anti italian .. it probably would have happenned if another group of brits were employed on mass a cheaper rates and segregated like this



it would have happened somewhat differently if it had been other brits, tho i take your point.  sure there are bound to be some plainly racist arses out there, the question is how many, and is that view becoming the dominant one?  I don't know, and i wholly accept that the reports have often been from people who decided the strikes as racist and then went looking for evidence to back their belief up. 

As you say, considering the last thirty years  its not surprising that the view is held by some, but unfortunately that also means it is _not impossible_ that it is held by many.

i'll be very interested to hear more reports from the picket lines from more disinterested parties


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

goldenecitrone said:


> You read the Observer.



I have nothing against the jews.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Two quotes from the Observer today:
> 
> 1


in Staythorpe they are explicitly and openly using workers on worse T&C's


----------



## e19896 (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> it would have happened somewhat differently if it had been other brits, tho i take your point.  sure there are bound to be some plainly racist arses out there, the question is how many, and is that view becoming the dominant one?  I don't know, and i wholly accept that the reports have often been from people who decided the strikes as racist and then went looking for evidence to back their belief up.
> 
> As you say, considering the last thirty years  its not surprising that the view is held by some, but unfortunately that also means it is _not impossible_ that it is held by many.
> 
> i'll be very interested to hear more reports from the picket lines from more disinterested parties



http://journeymanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/refinery-strike-class-not-country.html

http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/01/support-lindsey-construction-workers.html

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2009/01/divide-and-rule.html

http://nationofduncan.wordpress.com/

http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/01/racist-strike.html


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why should UK nationals take precedence over workers from other countries? .



Because the uk government is elected by uk  nationals  btw to there are far too many cosy middle class fuckwits on this thread who seem to have taken the goverments line and have just demonstrated how out of touch they are with wider and poorer society and those in non middle class professions . you cunts


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 1, 2009)

The Morning Star has come out in favour:

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/comment/biting_back_at_bosses_europe



> They are to be applauded and, if their unions cannot support them publicly because of the strictures of the anti-union laws, we can and we will.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

still on this thread we have so called left wingers defending Neo conservative economic policies and the race to the bottom and then they wonder why people are turning to the far right i am sure all the protesters will be really happy to know that belboid and duruti were having a bullentin board conversation as to how racsist they all are how can you idiots expect anything less than people turing to the far right when those who consider themselves left wing endorse the governments stance on this issue  BTW this i snot a resscion this is a DEPRESSION i do not recall under the tories car plants going on four day weeks or shutting down for four months !!!!! and this is just the begining  and with regards to the strikes on this thread the wadical have proved yet again how irrelevent they have become


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

e19896 said:


> http://journeymanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/refinery-strike-class-not-country.html
> 
> http://www.organizedrage.com/2009/01/support-lindsey-construction-workers.html
> 
> ...



none of those are actually reports from the picket lines. the SP one has some mention of their comrades' interventions, but they are hardly disinterested, not just because of their history of support for protectionism.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> i do not recall under the tories car plants going on four day weeks or shutting down for four months


you've got a shit memory then


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> still on this thread we have so called left wingers defending Neo conservative economic policies and the race to the bottom and then they wonder why people are turning to the far right i am sure all the protesters will be really happy to know that belboid and duruti were having a bullentin board conversation as to how racsist they all are how can you idiots expect anything less than people turing to the far right when those who consider themselves left wing endorse the governments stance on this issue  BTW this i snot a resscion this is a DEPRESSION i do not recall under the tories car plants going on four day weeks or shutting down for four months !!!!! and this is just the begining  and with regards to the strikes on this thread the wadical have proved yet again how irrelevent they have become



who exactly is backing neo-liberalism and/or the govt exactly?


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> BTW this i snot a resscion this is a DEPRESSION i do not recall under the tories car plants going on four day weeks or shutting down for four months !!!!! and this is just the begining  and with regards to the strikes on this thread the wadical have proved yet again how irrelevent they have become



The 3 day week was January - March '74 on Traitor Ted's watch.


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2009)

There's an awful lot of posturing and not a lot of thought kicking around at the moment.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

DownwardDog said:


> The 3 day week was January - March '74 on Traitor Ted's watch.



not to mention the massive plant closures and short-time working that went on under thatcher


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

labour may challenge the Laval/Viking rulings!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7863879.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

If that's what a tiny bit of pressure can get....


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> you've got a shit memory then



i have never claimed to have a perfect memory but then thats the difference between me and you your full shit and more interested in smearing the strikers as racsists


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> not to mention the massive plant closures and short-time working that went on under thatcher



they are not comparable thatcher did not give bankers billions and gordon brown makes her look like a socialist everything that is happening now is hapening much faster and the fall out from this credit crunch is much more simlar to the 1920s than the 1980s/90s now run along and do your poll asking urbanites about what percentage of the stikers they think are racsists


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 1, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, but I've stayed in a *broth*el. Does that count?



is that a floating soup kitchen?


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

DownwardDog said:


> The 3 day week was January - March '74 on Traitor Ted's watch.



not comaprable that was at the hieght of unrest this current strike is at the begining of the credit crunch fyi your meant to saulte the sun not read it


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> labour *may* challenge the Laval/Viking rulings!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7863879.stm



or as it is labour spins bbc reports with out asking the hard questions


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

chilango said:


> who exactly is backing neo-liberalism and/or the govt exactly?



go and read the thread its fairly obvious which posters are taking the governments line


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> go and read the thread its fairly obvious which posters are taking the governments line



Its a LONG thread.

who? and how?

y'see there may be, but too often here posters are throwing all kinds of similar accusations around to avoid answering hard questions.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> If that's what a tiny bit of pressure can get....



no its what a tiny bit of spin does it shuts up debate and makes people think that everything is ok only belboid could be as so stupid to cut and paste newshamebore spin


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> your full shit and more interested in smearing the strikers as racsists



I've done no such thing, you silly little liar.



brasicritique said:


> they are not comparable thatcher did not give bankers billions


yes she did, you complete and utter moron


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> no its what a tiny bit of spin does it shuts up debate and makes people think that everything is ok only belboid could be as so stupid to cut and paste newshamebore spin



You, unsuprisingly miss the point - that a little bit of pressure like this makes them feel like they have to pretend to do something drastic - i wonder what they'd do if _really_ threatened.

You don't.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

chilango said:


> Its a LONG thread..



they usually are 



chilango said:


> who? and how?.



sorry and you are? yes i will spend time and effort to answer all your questions as that is what every poster always does here in the urban forums




chilango said:


> y'see there may be, but too often here posters are throwing all kinds of similar accusations around to avoid answering hard questions.



what you mean like belboid and duruti disscussing to what extent the strikers are racsists btw fyi this is urban75


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> what you mean like belboid and duruti disscussing to what extent the strikers are racsists btw fyi this is urban75



i'm almost tempted to reply to this, but as no one but brasic believes it, and he would simply ignore what was written in reply and make up his own version of what I wrote, it's not really worth it, is it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

Nope.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You, unsuprisingly miss the point - that a little bit of pressure like this makes them feel like they have to pretend to do something drastic - i wonder what they'd do if _really_ threatened.
> You don't.




no i dont need to wonder what they will do as i can tell you now as it is similar to what some posters are doing on here- newshamebore friends in the media will toe there spin/line and opt for the stikers are rascists backwards and protectionists etc and then ship the police in to break any ongoing wild cat strikes btw i see your still sellling your politcal principles for online urban popularity


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

Not interested.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> i'm almost tempted to reply to this, but as no one but brasic believes it, and he would simply ignore what was written in reply and make up his own version of what I wrote, it's not really worth it, is it?



yes as you did not discuss with duruti2 how racsist the strikers may or may not be


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Not interested.



then why post 

oh i forgot to ask you all who newshamebores head of spin is and where she last worked


----------



## audiotech (Feb 1, 2009)

ViolentPanda said:


> He looks at someone else's copy, I expect.


 
Disc two of the best of the secret policeman's ball in the Observer today.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> labour may challenge the Laval/Viking rulings!
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7863879.stm



Going to the ECJ , and saying "oi maties, you can't do that!" is not what they are going to do, or rather it would be  at best futile and at worst self defeating (so actually, knowing this lot, might be exactly what they will do)
More likely to ask Vladimír Špidla to propose some new legislation, or tightening amendments on existing legislation, that more than likely won't get to a UK ratification stage until after the next general election.


----------



## where to (Feb 1, 2009)

theres been several days of useful and important debate and discussion on this we all know the positions various groups and individuals are taking now.

the BNP have posters and stuff up online ready to download and print off  ffs.

have any left groups written up a leaflet or poster?

perhaps we could start a thread with ideas for slogans/ text/ images etc?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 1, 2009)

What's really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6849


Keith Gibson, Personal Capacity, G.M.B. - unofficial LOR Strike Committee.
_Note: At the time of writing there are plans to lobby Alstom Head Offices on 5th February in London. A ninety day redundancy notice had been issued around mid November 2008 at Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) for Shaws' workforce. This meant that by February 17th 2009 a number of Shaws' construction workers (LOR) would be made redundant. The day before the Christmas holiday Shaws' shop-stewards reported to the men that a part of the contract on LOR's HDS3 plant had been awarded to IREM, an Italian company.... _

Another bit:
_This worker solidarity is against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K. The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement. THE B.N.P. SHOULD TAKE HEED, U.K. CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WILL NOT TOLERATE 'ANOTHER RACIST ATTEMPT' TO SEVER FRATERNAL RELATIONS WITH WORKERS FROM OTHER NATIONS _

And some demands being raised: 

_Demands for Construction Industry:
* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement
* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members
* Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers
* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - via interpreters - to give right of access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members_


----------



## chilango (Feb 1, 2009)

Good stuff.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

That's good stuff from the SP. Well  done on two fronts:

a)This worker solidarity is against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K.

b)THE B.N.P. SHOULD TAKE HEED, U.K. CONTRUCTION WORKERS WILL NOT TOLERATE 'ANOTHER RACIST ATTEMPT' TO SEVER FRATERNAL RELATIONS WITH WORKERS FROM OTHER NATIONS


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 1, 2009)

I was thinking about all this BNP stuff and strike... I bet you could find NF stuff from the 80s supporting the miners... does anybody have access to such material? It would be good to reproduce it and post it online to show all those on the left that this far-right support for strikes is nothing new...


----------



## dennisr (Feb 1, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I was thinking about all this BNP stuff and strike... I bet you could find NF stuff from the 80s supporting the miners... does anybody have access to such material? It would be good to reproduce it and post it online to show all those on the left that this far-right support for strikes is nothing new...



To be frank, i wonder whether the effort wasted in trying to raise the understanding of the sort of infantile idiots -  who claim to be 'left' but don't seem to have a clue about what the working class is and how it acts - is really worth it. I mean we could go back to the left elements of the SA supporting strike movements  - but it isn't like these people have learnt the basics in that many decades. It is a closed book to them. I hope they stay well away - idiots like that could end up leading some angry folk into the arms of the BNP by default. Better we go to those fighting real battles rather than fantasy ones.

I find it odd how people who are critical of the press on Gaza are willing to take that same presses version of events when it comes to local workers. How Hamas cannot be critisized  in the slightest but British workers expressing sometimes confused anger cannot be supported as a result!! - i can only hope that such people remain irrelevant to real workers movements.

I read somewhere that the highest membership, from a single trade union, of the old NF prior to the 84-5 strike was among the NUM - of course the strike cut right across that


----------



## steve0223 (Feb 1, 2009)

An open letter to the anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement


> We have watched with interest and extitement the unfolding wildcat strikes across the country. The radical left has responded with both support and condemnation, but overwhelmingly, silence. For several reasons, including the complex nature of the strike actions and also our obligation as anarchists to struggle with all exploited workers, we feel that it is important to both open a dialogue and apply an anarchist critique to the situation. The BNP are agitating to subvert these strikes towards a racist agenda, and we think it's imperative for anarchists to support the strikes from an anti-capitalist viewpoint and fight the racists away. Facism is divisive and an enemy of the working class - we, as anarchists should be standing shoulder to shoulder with all workers whilst arguing and acting against reactionary and facist tendencies. The basic call for workers' rights and for capitalist profiteers not to outsource disputed jobs to cheaper workers is fair, and not necessarily racist. We do not see this as a freedom of movement issue, as what we are seeing here is the forced movement of people as disposable commodities at the whim of global capitalism. Most situations like these lead to sweatshop conditions, union busting and brutal working conditions for the foreign workers and unemployment and the destruction of working class communities for British workers. Also, supporting these workers, and listening to their concerns and viewpoints will enable us to start a dialogue with them on the subject of who the real enemy is i.e not other exploited workers, but greedy bosses and politicians ruthlessly persuing a free market race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions. Dialogue with all workers is important because there will be other issues we need to discuss with them in a friendly way in the future, such as enviromental issues many of us would advocate which may affect their jobs. Different traditions within the anarchist movement will always have dificulties initially agreeing with the standpoint of some workers, but a friendly and open dialogue in the spirit of solidarity is an important key to building a movement genuinley capable of confronting capitalism and the state.
> 
> In Solidarity
> 
> John, Jon, Steve and Rach from within (but not on behalf of) Bath Activist Network




https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/420969.html


----------



## dennisr (Feb 1, 2009)

steve0223 said:


> An open letter to the anarchist/anti-authoritarian movement
> https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/02/420969.html



Sorry - I am trying not too be cynical - but as others have pointed out above, and with all due respect for the recognition shown in the letter, the BNP are already trying to do their dirty work - more importantly the entire press ad media is dirtying the reality behind the actions and most importantly the wildcats are already going ahead and need that concrete support now. Serious class-struggle anarchists or socialists or whatever should be getting on with their own support and leave such 'discussions' to the aftermath.


----------



## snadge (Feb 1, 2009)

> Also, supporting these workers, and listening to their concerns and viewpoints will enable us to start a dialogue with them on the subject of who the real enemy is i.e not other exploited workers, but greedy bosses and politicians ruthlessly persuing a free market race to the bottom in terms of wages and working conditions.



John, Jon, Steve and Rach can go and dip their rings.


FUCK OFF.

We already know what the struggle is, we don't need middle class wankers dialoguing with us.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 1, 2009)

snadge said:


> John, Jon, Steve and Rach can go and dip their rings.
> FUCK OFF.



yep, thats another way of putting it...


----------



## where to (Feb 1, 2009)

BNP now have dedicated blog up and running:
http://www. britishwildcats.com/


----------



## treelover (Feb 1, 2009)

Good stuff, Dennis, but why is it when others say these things it is 'whinging'


btw, you are spot on though, on the SU blog it is all about whether the strike is racist or not, rather that what can be done


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2009)

snadge said:


> John, Jon, Steve and Rach can go and dip their rings.
> 
> 
> FUCK OFF.
> ...


i see your point, but when you've got the BNP on hand attempting to steer the strikers anger in one direction, I think it's valid for people who've spent years fighting against the growing neoliberal globalisation experiment to be on hand to counter the BNP's arguements.

Obviously it needs doing right, but surely even us middle class wankers can have our uses... 

btw I'm thinking soup kitchens and the like to keep those on the frontline able to stay on the front line for longer, perhaps with some info about our take on the situation, rather than simply going to preach at people and wave daft placards in their faces... plus I'm thinking there'll be a few tricks that we've picked up along the way that could get passed on in case the police do decide to come in hard at any point.


----------



## gosub (Feb 1, 2009)

where to said:


> BNP now have dedicated blog up and running:
> http://www. britishwildcats.com/



As a matter of interesat how do you know that is BNP? Zero content and a whois of Mesh Digital, Guildford, who technically could be done for sedition


----------



## where to (Feb 1, 2009)

gosub said:


> As a matter of interesat how do you know that is BNP? Zero content and a whois of Mesh Digital, Guildford, who technically could be done for sedition



sorry, should of said. got the blog from a direct link from their website, and those are their posters.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

where to said:


> sorry, should of said. got the blog from a direct link from their website, and those are their posters.



Aye, the posters are linked to from the BNP homepage.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

treelover said:


> G
> 
> 
> btw, you are spot on though, on the SU blog it is all about whether the strike is racist or not, rather that what can be done



fyi butchers and fedayin you pair of snide smear artists


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> I've done no such thing, you silly little liar.
> 
> 
> yes she did, you complete and utter moron



not on this scale you prat so shut it


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> fyi butchers and fedayin you pair of snide smear artists



And your point is what exactly? You inferred they were agreeing that race was a major issue in the strike. You singled two people out, even though the issue of whether race was the major iussue was being discussed by pretty much 'everyone'. Now fuck off back under your stone you fucking twat.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> And your point is what exactly? You inferred they were agreeing that race was a major issue in the strike. You singled two people out, even though the issue of whether race was the major iussue was being discussed by pretty much 'everyone'. Now fuck off back under your stone you fucking twat.



go fuck yourself my point was similar to that made by treelover which is why i qouted it fyi if there is anyone who is a hyocritical twat living under a stone its you


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> go fuck yourself my point was similar to that made by treelover which is why i qouted it fyi if there is anyone who is a hyocritical twat living under a stone its you



Your comment was not the same as TL's, stop wriggling.


----------



## treelover (Feb 1, 2009)

In this weather, soup kitchens would indeed be a great idea, FS, but will the DA lot deliver?


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Your comment was not the same as TL's, stop wriggling.



your the one wriggling not me as you have been well and truley exposed as someone more interested in online vendettas and smearing posters who have the same views on the issue as other posters so the question is why you and secret service bucthers have taken such an approach


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> your the one wriggling not me as you have been well and truley exposed as someone more interested in online vendettas and smearing posters who have the same views on the issue as other posters so the question is why you and secret service bucthers have taken such an approach



You made the inference, stop running. No one, me included, has claimed that the issue of race was't being discussed. Your inference re belboid and durrutti wasn't the same as TL's remarks and you know it. 

What do you think my opinion on the issue is then? Because going by your 'logic' i'm smearing myself.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> You made the inference, stop running. No one, me included, has claimed that the issue of race was't being discussed. Your inference re belboid and durrutti wasn't the same as TL's remarks and you know it.
> 
> What do you think my opinion on the issue is then? Because going by your 'logic' i'm smearing myself.



no you have constructed a very nasty inference i have called you out i have qouted treelover as he said what i did albeit using differtent words your a nasty piece of work who has been rumbled and you know it judging by your last comment above that you are now abusing yourself  your a cockroach


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> no you have constructed a very nasty inference i have called you out i have qouted treelover as he said what i did albeit using differtent words your a nasty piece of work who has been rumbled and you know it judging by your last comment above that you are now abusing yourself  your a cockroach



Yeah yea, you know what you said, you know that you were attacking belboid and durrutti over their, in your view, being more concerned with race than the issue. Now stop bleating and fuck off. Go and call someone a bitch and feel happy with yourself.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 1, 2009)

dennisr said:


> To be frank, i wonder whether the effort wasted in trying to raise the understanding of the sort of infantile idiots -  who claim to be 'left' but don't seem to have a clue about what the working class is and how it acts - is really worth it. I mean we could go back to the left elements of the SA supporting strike movements  - but it isn't like these people have learnt the basics in that many decades. It is a closed book to them. I hope they stay well away - idiots like that could end up leading some angry folk into the arms of the BNP by default.




i as having exactly the same conversation with your irish comrade at the BBC demo just last monday! he he  we agreed it was good the SW types stuck to studentish demos like that rather than intervene ( interfer) with stuff on the ground here!


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Yeah yea, you know what you said, you know that you were attacking belboid and durrutti over their, in your view, being more concerned with race than the issue. Now stop bleating and fuck off. Go and call someone a bitch and feel happy with yourself.




i have already said and will say again for the millionth time you are constructing an inference in order to make yourself feel good and smear me in a way that trivialises the seriousness of the whol epoint of wading in with th eidea of discussing rascism at this time so why dont you go and fuck off and moan to the mods as you clealry lack somthing in your life to make you happy end of


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> i as having exactly the same conversation with your irish comrade at the BBC demo just last monday! he he  we agreed it was good the SW types stuck to studentish demos like that rather than intervene ( interfer) with stuff on the ground here!



so do you not agree that it is dangerous for the whole issue of race to start getting thrown about willy nilly then?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> i have already said and will say again for the millionth time you are constructing an inference in order to make yourself feel good and smear me in a way that trivialises the seriousness of the whol epoint of wading in with th eidea of discussing rascism at this time so why dont you go and fuck off and moan to the mods as you clealry lack somthing in your life to make you happy end of



No one is trivialising anything.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No one is trivialising anything.



yes you are and you know it


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 1, 2009)

How is race an issue in this strike at all?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> yes you are and you know it



No, i'm not.


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

treelover said:


> Good stuff, Dennis, but why is it when others say these things it is 'whinging'


well, purely in my experience i hope you realise, that's because those accused of whining _only_ mention the critical bits, and never the constructive bits


----------



## badco (Feb 1, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Once again, why should UK nationals take precedence over foreign workers?



Now I know this is not the case here,but,what opinion do you think you would hold if you were replaced in your employment by a foreign worker because the foreign worker was willing to do your job for a smaller salary?


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> not on this scale you prat so shut it



i'd recommend you go and look into the changes thatcher and co made to the financial laws when she got into power.  you'll find that bankers actually gained a hell of a lot more in financial terms from her than they will do even from this bail out.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 1, 2009)

dennisr said:


> What's really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6849
> 
> ...



Interesting stuf, ta


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

badco said:


> Now I know this is not the case here,but,what opinion do you think you would hold if you were replaced in your employment by a foreign worker because the foreign worker was willing to do your job for a smaller salary?



use of the word 'foreign' shouldn't have any relevance there, should it?


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2009)

dennisr said:


> What's really behind the Lindsey Oil Refinery strike
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6849
> 
> ...



I'd drop the word 'immigrant' from the fifth demand, but otherwise, top stuff.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> I'd drop the word 'immigrant' from the fifth demand, but otherwise, top stuff.


"Migrant"?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 1, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> "Migrant"?



Yep that would improve it for me too, on the whole good sentiments there, hopefully the grassroots will see the sense in it.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 1, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> "Migrant"?



Sounds better to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Yep that would improve it for me too, on the whole good sentiments there, hopefully the grassroots will see the sense in it.



Well, it is being imposed or is it coming _from_ the R&F? Do they need pesuading away from their terrible ways?


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 1, 2009)

belboid said:


> i'd recommend you go and look into the changes thatcher and co made to the financial laws when she got into power.  you'll find that bankers actually gained a hell of a lot more in financial terms from her than they will do even from this bail out.



bullshit brown has put us in debt for the next twenty years that old bitch did not your still defedning newshamebore to th eend


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> bullshit brown has put us in debt for the next twenty years that old bitch did not your still defedning newshamebore to th eend



no, just pointing out your basic factual errors


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

"newshamebore" i can see this catching on quite soon with little initial support.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> "Migrant"?



I was thinking, even more simply, of just "*All* labour to be unionised"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

The top 100


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

200 ya bleedin' centrist!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

The time is not right


----------



## gosub (Feb 2, 2009)

where to said:


> sorry, should of said. got the blog from a direct link from their website, and those are their posters.





Fedayn said:


> Aye, the posters are linked to from the BNP homepage.



Am not up on current state of play, but that must surely require an imprint "eg Printed and Published by...." or as its download probably just "published by Name and Address" and like I said they can have them for sedition.

I say that not because I have lack of empathy with the strikers, quite the contrary, the underlying issues are exactly what Unions are for. But oil and gas has had a shaky 6 months,with prices plummeting; and thinking about whats been going on with the banks especially  given the involvement of private equity in UK refining; the last thing they need is opportunists blundering about around them as they try to catch their falling colleagues while themselves on a perilous tightrope.

I linked to the Viking & Lavel thread (64 views 3 posts as of today) not out of opportunism, but because it is a genuine obstacle in their way or rather sticking to the tightrope analogy: like replacing a safety net with spikes, all in the name of justice and ever closer union. For once though it is good to see the political classes mobilising quickly to address this, though how successfully time will tell(won't be case specific).

Watching this, the other bit that really does alarm me has been the paralysis nay almost horror of the left. I've mainly be getting my news off Radio 4 where its been quite clear that this isn't about malice towards the cheaper replacement workers themselves, so I've been a bit perplexed about the "racism" notion that seemed to have caught the left like a rabbit in the headlights. Obviously through wider/ different coverage it could be down to a number of things, but I suspect it may be the use of the slogan British Jobs/British workers and if so I think the left is headed into dangerous doldrums.

All politics has to ground itself, I mean litrerally there is always a geo level to politics, be it the ward or constituency that will be represented, the area where tax and laws are applied ....an aloof I'm internationalist standpoint looking down won't work,can't work. Has to be me, here working onwards and outwards gradually (or rapidly with modern comms) working with likeminded further afield to affect change. You don't have to be, in fact preferably without being, rampantly tribal, but you do have to build up from roots; or you can wait for the Internationalist Elections.

Secondly let's assume "British Jobs for British Workers" is racist, there is a case, after all before Brown it was a slogan in the early 70's by the NF apparently, I was born 72 so I never came across it in that context.  But then I grew up very happily in a nation that isn't all one race. Start pinning race and nationality together and the last 60 years have been for nought, and you let the likes of the BNP call the terrain.

 Last post for me this thread.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

after reading through this thread, and scouring the web, here's my take on it from a sustainable development pov for what it's worth...


Any largescale industrial plant inevitably pollutes the local area in the course of it's routine operations, and has the risk of causing severe pollution incidents if something should go wrong - eg an oil tanker running agound in the fishing areas etc.

When a company first get's permission to build a facility like the Lindsey Oil Refinery they will always do so with the promise of bringing thousands of jobs to the area, and pumping hundreds of millions of pounds a year into the wider local economy as workers live locally and spend money in local shops, pubs, rents, etc etc.

This in effect is a social contract with the local community that they agree to accept the air, land and water pollution, increased traffic, trashing of the landscape, and increased risk of major pollution incidents... and in return the company will pump money into the local economy by employing local people, and travelling workers who either temporarily or permanently live and spend money in the local area while working at the site.

By signing a contract with a foreign firm to employ 300 foreign workers, and no local workers, with the foreign workers all living and eating aboard a floatel, ensuring that virtually none of the money from the contract finds it's way to the local community at all... Total have effectively broken the social contract with the local community that they made when they first built the site. The local community still has to put up with all the problems caused by the site, but now doesn't get the benefits it was promised in return.

Now I'm sure no actual laws have technically been broken, but I'd bet my left index finger that the above economic arguement was used by the company when they originally applied for permission to build on the site, and will have been the line trumpeted in the local papers with headlines along the lines of 'thousands of jobs come to the area as new oil refinery to be built'... and this is what local people will remember, and why they'll feel that they have been lied to and betrayed by the company who's done this, and the authorities that have passed the laws that allowed this to happen

So yes the people protesting absolutely have the moral right to be protesting about Total's action in breaking their social contract with the local community by signing a £300million contract that guarantees exclusive employment to non-locals, thereby removing most of £300million from the local economy and no this is not a racist action. 

Where I think they've gone wrong is in the 'british jobs for british people' slogan, as it really should read 'local jobs for local people', coz they'd be equally pissed off if a load of cornishmen were brought up on mass to live in a floatel, not spend any money locally, and only cornishmen were being recruited for the work... equally I've seen no evidence that anyone is protesting about any individual foreigners, or british people from outside the area who want to come and work at the plant and live normally in the local community, so that much of the momey they earn ends up in the local economy.

This is in addition to the stuff Snadge and others have talked about in regards to undercutting wages.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 2, 2009)

A good piece well put


----------



## where to (Feb 2, 2009)

for info. from the FT:


> Meanwhile, as ministers sounded warnings over the dangers of protectionism, Sicily’s conservative governor, Raffaele Lombardo, threatened to retaliate against UK interests if he saw evidence of “xenophobic hate”.
> 
> The Sicily governor’s angry reaction was not echoed by the Italian government. However, it underlined the dangers of the wildcat strikes backfiring on British workers overseas. “If the reports are confirmed of xenophobic hate directed against the Sicilians, we would not hesitate to break off negotiations with the Erg-Shell group that has proposed building a regasification plant right in the province of Siracusa, at Priolo,” Mr Lombardo said in Italian media reports.




La Republica in Italy are giving prominent coverage of this story and are describing the strikes as "anti-Italian":
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/se...wn-contro-scioperi/brown-contro-scioperi.html


Meanwhile Jon Cruddas is again supporting the strikes in the Mirror:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...mad-in-the-race-to-cut-wages-115875-21088411/


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

shagnasty said:
			
		

> A good piece well put


cheers... this is the thing about sustainable development in it's original non-watered down form - it actually makes a lot of sense, and properly understanding the concept would help people in this kind of situation to properly communicate what the real source of their anger is in a way that pretty much the entire country could understand and agree with.

problem is that as soon as you mention the words sustainable development, people's eyes tend to glaze over and they decide you must be about to spout on about polar bears or something due largely to pig ignorant politicians (and a fair few clueless hippies) hijacking the phrase for their own ends, without having the first clue about what it actually means... the ideas outlined above are pretty much the core concept of sustainable development, yet they're almost entirely absent from the UN and subsequent government agreements on sustainable development presumably because they conflict too much with the oh so spectacularly successful global economic miracle that is neoliberal free trade.

btw this is essentially the same issue that us middle class anarchist ecowarrior types have been campaigning on for years if you boil it down to multinational companies screwing over the local population, and not living up to the social contracts they entered into when the local people agreed to them building their plants in the area - eg the Ogoni people's campaign against shell in Nigeria. Now it's happening here (to a much lesser extent), and the workers are issuing calls for solidairty... did I miss the UK oil workers uprising in solidarity with the Ogoni people when their peaceful mass campaign against the Oil multinationals pollution of their lands, and failure to pay them the agreed fees was brutally repressed in the mid 90's at the behest of the oil companies? oh no, that's right, it was just a good excuse for british oil workers to earn extra danger money going and working the nigerian oil fields against the express wishes of the local population.

That's just one example, but IMO the UK oil workers record in recent decades of solidarity with other workers and affected communities around the world in their disputes with the oil companies has been pitiful, with UK oil workers being among the biggest international scabs in the industry, happy to take the oil companies money to work under armed guard where necessary to keep the oil companies profits flowing in the face of mass local opposition to their activities.

So, I really wouldn't be surprised if there's not a huge outpouring of international solidarity with the UK workers now the boot's on the other foot, particularly if they continue to use the utterly counter productive 'british jobs for british workers' line... yes the cause is just, but so were all the other causes that UK workers chose to take the side of the oil companies over the local population on.

UK unions, and unionised workers have also been noticable by their absense from any meaningful action against the expansion of the global neoliberal experiment over the last 15 years or so, whereas in many other  countries the Unions have played a much fuller role in the movement. Maybe they thought none of this applied to them, and it was all about the 3rd world or something.

I guess what I'm trying to say boils down to this...

_
'nice of you to join us lads, pity you took so fucking long about getting off the fence... 
now you're off the fence do you intend to engage withany of the wider issues that have led to this situation all over the world, or just stick to the single issue of shipped in foreign workers in your industry in the UK?'_

[/rant]


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say boils down to this...
> 
> _
> 'nice of you to join us lads, pity you took so fucking long about getting off the fence...
> ...



this is quite a good point and TBH from outside the UK it does seem that the UK workers have been selfish, only reacting when their own personal comfort is threatened, I think international sympathy may be somewhat muted.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> this is quite a good point and TBH from outside the UK it does seem that the UK workers have been selfish, only reacting when their own personal comfort is threatened, I think international sympathy may be somewhat muted.



I think its a somewhat arrogant point that displays little understanding of how people think and experience or how activists can engage with those same people.

So these workers are 'johnny come latleys'!! to your 'schemes' and 'activism' - that's arrogant and ignorant of the day to day presures people face. Lets be frank they are STILL not part of the anti-globalisation movement - and they never will be if we approach hose individuals like some claim we should. *They are simply people facing loss of jobs, homes, livelihoods and acting back*. Its easy to 'rant' on the internet incoherently. First we have to show those people that we are the best support, we understand we are onside - not 'we know best'. I sometimes wonder what planet some so called 'activists' think they are on.

We arnt going to get very far if we don't meet those people halfway - if we don't get them onside if we don't show that it is worth taking the next step, recognising the direct effects of economic globalisation that british workers have been - largely - cushioned from in the recent past. I fully understand why people keep their heads down and stick with the the given 'norms' and pettiness of life most of the time. I also recognise that they can only break with that through their own experience not the 'expert' 'advise' of activists.

Lets also face the fact that working people like this can potentially achieve ten times what has been achieved by that anti-globalisation movement where it has remained (not its own fault... but lets be straight up about this) seperate from the conciousness of most working class people in any given country. That working class movement has a potential power others do not have.

Finally, on the italian press hypocracy - are we to judge international sympathy on the basis of the mealy-mouthed words of other bosses mouthpieces? as some have judged the nature of this dispute on the basis of the local bosses mothpieces? So italian newspapers have a sudden 'concern' for the 'rights' of their countrymen and women? the same italian workers who have ben shafted by the same italian and other boses since the foundation of the italian state and long before? that hypocricy and cant surprises people here???


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

The text of the Socialist Party leaflet presently being put out (sorry for cut and paste - but it contains plenty of info relevant to this thread/discussion):

Leaflet written by KEITH GIBSON (G.M.B. - unofficial LOR Strike Cttee) 
and JOHN McEWAN (shop stewards national forum) both in personal capacities


STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT
Iceland, Greece, France, Latvia ….. all across Europe workers are taking to the streets in protest  against governments that have let the fat-cats get rich while our jobs, wages and pensions are being attacked. Now at last, workers in Britain are saying “Enough is Enough!” Our strike spread like wild-fire last week with solidarity action all across the UK with around 20 sites out by Friday. Thousands of workers taking militant action completely disregarding the anti-trade union laws. We’ve got the government rattled. We must strike while the iron is hot. We must spread the strike to force the employers and government to concede our demands.

GORDON BROWN – YOUR GOVERNMENT IS “IN-DEFENSIBLE”
Gordon Brown says our wildcat strike is “in-defensible”. No Gordon, it is your government and ten years of pro-Big Business policies that are indefensible. New Labour have encouraged employers to exploit workers in Britain through de-regulation, cheap labour and anti-union policies. Peter Mandelson says British workers can go and work in the EU. Sounds like Norman Tebbitt telling the unemployed in the 1980s to get on their bikes! Why the hell should we have to leave our homes and families to work when companies like Alstom and IREM won’t let us work here?

FIGHT FOR JOBS – STOP THE RACE TO THE BOTTOM!
The bosses, the bankers and the government have got us in this economic mess. Now they want us to pay the price with our jobs, wages and conditions. NO WAY! This strike is to stop this race to the bottom. We are striking against the employers like Alstom and IREM who refuse to hire local labour. We are striking against the EU pro-business laws and court rulings that make it legal for employers to exploit cheap labour to maximise profits.
This strike is to stop employers undermining our national NAECI agreement and trying to break our trade union strength.

Rather than saying British jobs for British workers we should say TRADE UNION JOBS & CONDITIONS FOR ALL WORKERS

WHAT DO WE WANT?
Socialist Party thinks that the trade unions should fight for:
• No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
• All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement
• Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available
• Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers – fight for a future for young people
• All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
• Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.
Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

And the back of it (i've left out the usual SP demands for a new workers party - so the pisstakers have less to derail with :

The story so far ……………..
A ninety day redundancy notice had been issued around mid November 2008 at Lindsey Oil Refinery (LOR) for Shaws’ workforce.  This meant that by February 17th 2009 a number of Shaws’ construction workers (LOR) would be made redundant.
 The day before the Christmas holiday Shaws’ shop-stewards reported to the men that a part of the contract on LOR’s HDS3 plant had been awarded to IREM, an Italian company.   The Stewards explained that Shaws had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce numbering 200-300.   Stewards and Union Officials asked to meet with IREM a.s.a.p.  after Christmas to clarify the proposal i.e. would IREM employ British labour?  Shaws’ workforce were told that the IREM workforce would be housed in floating barges in Grimsby docks for the duration of the job, they would be bussed to work in the morning, bussed to and from the barge for lunch.
IREM workers would work from 7.30am - 11.30am and 13.00 – 1700.  On Saturdays they would work 4 hours to make up a working week of 44 hours.  The normal working week is 44 hours divided by 5 days, from 7.30 -1600 finishing at 1400 on Fridays (most workers work overtime).  Normal breaks include 10 minutes in a morning and a 30 minute dinner break.
  Stewards were told that IREM workers would be paid the national rate for the job; to date this has not been confirmed.   After Christmas the nominated Shop Stewards entered into negotiations with IREM.  Meanwhile, a National Shop-Stewards Forum for the construction Industry held a meeting in London to discuss Staythorpe Power Station where the company Alstom were refusing to hire British labour relying on non union Polish and Spanish workers instead.
 It was decided that all Blue Book sites covered by the National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry (NAECI) should send delegations down to Staythorpe to protest against Alstoms’ actions.  The workforce on the LOR site sent delegations.  Then, on Wednesday 28th January 2009 Shaws’ workforce were told by the Stewards that IREM had stated they would not be employing British labour.
  The entire LOR workforce, from all subcontracting companies, met and voted unanimously to take immediate unofficial strike action.  The following day over a thousand construction workers from LOR, Conoco and Easington sites descended outside LOR’s gate to picket and protest.
 This was the spark that ignited the spontaneous unofficial walk outs of our brother construction workers across the length and breadth of Britain.  This worker solidarity is against the ‘conscious blacking’ of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K.
  The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement.

UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.UNITY IS OUR STRENGTH
The RACIST ORGANISATION - the BNP are attempting to intervene in this strike.
 How dare they? 
The BNP is an anti-trade union organisation that supported Thatcher against the miners in the 1980s.
 They opposed the Firefighters’ strike claiming ‘they should not even have the right to strike’.
 They have set up their own ‘segregated’ union that will split and divide workers.
 BNP policies are like the policies of company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against another thus undermining the national agreements that protect the hard won rights of workers like the NAECI Agreement in the Construction Industry.

Downloadable from: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> I was thinking, even more simply, of just "*All* labour to be unionised"


Yes, fair enough.  But I think the salient point here is migrant workers.

My take on it is this: this isn't a new issue, and shouldn't really have taken the union bureaucracies by surprise.  It's been an issue since the first years of the union movement.  The STUC in Scotland in its first years had the issue of Polish workers in the Lanarkshire coalfields.  The IWW in the US had the issue of bosses using migrant workers to undercut pay and conditions.  And the French syndicalist unions had the same issue.  All at the very start of those movements.

In all those cases the answer was the same - make sure the migrant workers are unionised so that pay and conditions can't be undercut.

In this case we've got guys given 90 day notices followed by the subcontractors saying they're only bringing in migrant workers, and not taking on any of the local workforce, despite the skills and experience.  Why?  Well, the suspicion has got to be that the migrant workers are on lower pay and conditions.

The trade union movement has had more than 100 years to get used to that issue, and if a few banners throwing back Gordon Brown's daft slogan at him is going to stump them, then, really, how do they expect workers to take them seriously?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> In all those cases the answer was the same - make sure the migrant workers are unionised so that pay and conditions can't be undercut.



Absolutely


----------



## steve0223 (Feb 2, 2009)

> Originally Posted by snadge
> John, Jon, Steve and Rach can go and dip their rings.
> FUCK OFF.
> We already know what the struggle is, we don't need middle class wankers dialoguing with us.



Fair enough. It does come across a bit 'we have the answers, those unaware proles will listen to us' but at least it's an improvement on a lot of the shite that has been coming out of the left lately.I was just glad that they are encouraging people to come out of their ghettos a bit, to forget what 'positions' and 'demands' they have on other issues and just offer some practical support and solidarity. Thats a bit of movement. 

ste


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Absolutely


So, as I asked in my first post on the thread, can anyone tell me if the Italian/Portuguese workers have been approached by the strikers/unions?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> So, as I asked in my first post on the thread, can anyone tell me if the Italian/Portuguese workers have been approached by the strikers/unions?



You would have to have better contact directly with the strikers than I do to answer that question 

(I imagine some folk have been attempting to approach them - how successful they would be, given the practical situation - how they are housed, I wouldn't know)


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

steve0223 said:


> I was just glad that they are encouraging people to come out of their ghettos a bit



It probably better they stay in their ghettos along with the 'left' fantasists if that's their attitude


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Worth remembering the European court of Justice's two recent rulings :
> 
> http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/ecj-decision-laval.htm


 

http://www.amicustheunion.org/lavalvikingruffert/default.aspx


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

Again, one has to ask where were the mass marches against the Posted Worker directive, the Lisbon Treaty, etc?, there were plenty in Europe, the left is culpable whatever some on here say, particualrty with its focus on anti-imperialism. A positive suggestion, the starting point for a new left should be a mea culpa, an acceptance they took the eye off the ball. Then a re-oriention, for example the welfare reforms are going to be savage, just at a time when the unemployed will need realy genunine help, yet still no national campaign has been launched, the SP's new youth 'right to work' campaign laudable as it is, doesn't mention benefits, harrassment of young claimants, etc,


----------



## brix (Feb 2, 2009)

They're discussing this on Daily Politics BB2 now.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Feb 2, 2009)

After this thread, and seeing Cruddas on Newsnight and reading about the issues elsewhere, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this situation. And I have come to some pretty awkward conclusions: the EU is a disaster waiting to happen. I also wonder whether it could lead to the very thing it was intended to avoid -- serious conflict. 

Remember Eddie George's "job losses in the north are an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south"?

Well, I suspect that the EU model has widened the economic sphere so that this attitude and approach can apply to the entire European economic area, not just the circumstances within a nation state. Except this time is not north versus south per se (though there is elements of that: Greece, Spain and Ireland have suffered for the stability of German housewives) but working people versus business. And the situation has further undermined working people's  positions within this 'new zone'. 

Workers in this new 'area' no long have parallel rights, welfare benefits and educational access to one another. They don't all have a reasonable equality of accessibility to available jobs across 'the zone'. They might not have had the same equality before, but the expansion of the labour market pool has exacerbated differences.

Depending on where said jobs are and how long workers work there, working people receive different levels of health provision and welfare benefits, and barriers to job accessibility have now increased in terms of awareness of regional health and safety policy, and language skills. In short, the EU model, with free movement of labour, looks to benefit working people -- and this is how it was originally sold -- but, actually, it is a bit of a devil's bargain. The economic disparities between EU states are ripe for abuse and exploitation -- both in terms of currency, inflation, legacy industries, education systems, and cost of living.    

There was a piece recently (can't remember where I read it) about German firms losing out on tenders for jobs to Polish firms, whose tenders were so low, they could not feasibly make any money out of the work. The Polish firms were taking it at a loss.

Again, another very awkward subject with sinister overtones: voting rights. Both for foreign EU nationals and home nationals. Lets say you are Polish, and you come to the UK for work. You can vote in local and euro elections, but not in the General Election. But you work here and pay income tax and NI. You are an adult. Maybe you stay in the UK for a number of years. But you have no say over where your income tax money is spent -- a quarter of your pay after PA.

Now replicate that across the EU zone. Hundreds of thousands of EU migrants paying tax and NI in other EU countries with NO REPRESENTATION and NO SAY in the way that  particular national government spends their money (apart from what Ireland may do, but that is by the bye). You could end up with a situation in EU countries where a significant minority of income tax payers have no political representation at national level, and are fundamentally transient or disenfranchised -- this situation is ripe for exploitation.

The problem is that we still have sovereign nation state political structures and power, but 'global' market state processes are undermining this system. This will be a time of great tension, and these wildcats strikes are the opening chords here in the UK. 

You know what? I think everyone should buy some candles. Just in case.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

More from Jerry Hicks:



> Why has it taken national strike action for the media to wake up to the well founded and widespread grievances of construction workers? On 7 January I circulated a statement to the press warning of the crisis and the growing anger and frustration of the workers whose concerns were not being aired or addressed either by the press or their own union leaders.


 
So, some on the left have been actively trying to address the grievances, but union leaders have buried their heads and ignored them.

And as Hicks rightly points out that Gordon Brown's call for "British Jobs for British workers" 'has created a huge problem of his own making'.

Thanks to Brown's use of nationalist rhetoric, progressives will find it more difficult to be heard. Pandering to the politics of the BNP is always destructive to any unity and only benefits the right, so Brown bears all the responsibility for the fall out.

Encouragingly, activists on the left are challenging such divisive talk.



> This is not about race or prejudice and we are actively challenging any attempt by the BNP to spread their poison. It is about the exploitation of labour, playing one worker off against another. It is about the employers trying to break nationally agreed arrangements and in doing so it is an attack on the union.


 
http://www.respectrenewal.org/content/view/483/1/


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> no, just pointing out your basic factual errors



no it is you who has made the bigest factual error by comparing the curent economic situation to the thatcher years when in fact what is happening now has more in common with the 1920s/30s while you still spin the newshamebore approach that it was all worse during the thacther years


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 2, 2009)

good stuff from th SP dennis


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> after reading through this thread, and scouring the web, here's my take on it from a sustainable development pov for what it's worth...
> 
> 
> Any largescale industrial plant inevitably pollutes the local area in the course of it's routine operations, and has the risk of causing severe pollution incidents if something should go wrong - eg an oil tanker running agound in the fishing areas etc.
> ...


good post


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> After this thread, and seeing Cruddas on Newsnight and reading about the issues elsewhere, I've been doing a lot of thinking about this situation. And I have come to some pretty awkward conclusions: the EU is a disaster waiting to happen. I also wonder whether it could lead to the very thing it was intended to avoid -- serious conflict.
> 
> Remember Eddie George's "job losses in the north are an acceptable price to pay for curbing inflation in the south"?
> 
> ...



I don't always agree with your politics DJ, but that was an excellent post and more or less sums up my feeelings on the matter. I've felt that way about the EU for a long time.


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

Where is a statement from John McDonnell and the LRC?, they constitute a large part of the non revolutionary left, (bigger than all of them) its crazy they have not yet commented.


Though, sadly I suspect they will come out against the strikes,

http://grimmerupnorth.blogspot.com/


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

Compass, soft left of LP seem to have come out in support

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/news/item.asp?n=3838


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

The issues appear to have been raised in early January by CLLR Mark Kirk, of North Lincolnshire Council and Shona McIsaac who met with Lindsey Oil Refinery bosses back then.



> From Shona McIsaac’s website, republished on BearFacts
> 
> *The number of workers employed on the project will increase by 500-600 by the end of February 2009.* After discussions current contractors, it was decided to go out to tender to recruit more workers. *A condition of the tender was that there had to be no redundancies from the existing workforce on the project.*
> 
> ...


 
My emphasis.

I've highlighted some of what was reported, the whole document can be read here.

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3504#comments


----------



## sihhi (Feb 2, 2009)

*WRP*

WRP are in full support.

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/3953


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 2, 2009)

I would have thought that one of the most interesting aspects of these current actions is that they demostrate worker solidarity outside union structures, and that this is surely a more important development than the continuing irrelevance of tiny soft-left grouplets.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> The issues appear to have been raised in early January by CLLR Mark Kirk, of North Lincolnshire Council and Shona McIsaac who met with Lindsey Oil Refinery bosses back then.
> 
> 
> My emphasis.
> ...



So what? Are you openly coming out against the strike now? Yeah, i always believe bosses and councillors over the workers with direct experience myself.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 2, 2009)

Maybe they could employ some of the unused skilled labour to swill out the floating barracks for the imported workers. Ha ha.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I would have thought that one of the most interesting aspects of these current actions is that they demostrate worker solidarity outside union structures, and that this is surely a more important development than the continuing irrelevance of tiny soft-left grouplets.



Absolutely. Thats said, there's been a number of stewards winking and suggesting it's been union led behind the scenes...


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Absolutely. Thats said, there's been a number of stewards winking and suggesting it's been union led behind the scenes...



That would be an encouraging sign tbh.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So what? Are you openly coming out against the strike now? Yeah, i always believe bosses and councillors over the workers with direct experience myself.


 
That info will be read by some of those involved on the bearfacts site. Let's hope they use it wisely to counter BNP lies and to hold the bosses, councillors and union leaders to account.


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 2, 2009)

Just heard from a mate of mine who works at Fawley Refinery for DSL (scaffolders) in Hampshire.

About 100 of them have walked including Polish Scaffolders.

Local News report.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I would have thought that one of the most interesting aspects of these current actions is that they demostrate worker solidarity outside union structures, and that this is surely a more important development than the continuing irrelevance of tiny soft-left grouplets.



yep


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

Pretty amazing to see thousands of workers still in this terrible weather out protesting


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Just heard from a mate of mine who works at Fawley Refinery for DSL (scaffolders) in Hampshire.
> 
> About 100 of them have walked including Polish Scaffolders.



Good to hear - linking up as an EU-wide workers movement against a bosses EU (and boss EU laws) can only be a good thing


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

Friutloop, who was that aimed at?, many people on here are posting the positions of the various sects, the LRC has more members, M.P's etc, that any of the others, though i support your wider point,


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

treelover said:


> Pretty amazing to see thousands of workers still in this terrible weather out protesting



Actually I was just thinking - you can trust the feckin british weather to do its best to mess things up at this point


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Worth restating (from the other thread):




			
				butchersapron said:
			
		

> ...apparently C4 showed footage of the BNP being abused and chased off one of the pickets (not sure which one) earlier. I think the strikers can easily enough work out whose trying to exploit their struggles without anyone wagging their fingers at them and or casting doubts on their 'credential' - and for some of them, this might even have come about precisely _because_ of these walkouts.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 2, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Just heard from a mate of mine who works at Fawley Refinery for DSL (scaffolders) in Hampshire.
> 
> About 100 of them have walked including Polish Scaffolders.
> 
> Local News report.



http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/dec2005/012.jpg


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2009)

> Total stated that these accusations simply aren’t true.



total = scumbags.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2009)

Interesting to see that the media are only reporting on the foreign labour aspect of it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 2, 2009)

treelover said:


> Friutloop, who was that aimed at?, many people on here are posting the positions of the various sects, the LRC has more members, M.P's etc, that any of the others, though i support your wider point,



Not aimed at anyone in particular. I have always thought that the only thing to be gained by leftists like myself was to attempt to preserve the radical nature of genuine working-class struggle as workers ourselves, not as representatives of a particular party seeking either power or influence, and similarly that the left grouplets would be either left behind or swept aside by genuinely radical w/c activity - and the unions as bureaucratic structures even more so. Which appears to be the case. Not that there is nothing to be gained at all from these types of groups either in promoting disinterested (institutionally speaking) propaganda to attempt to counteract the dominant consensus or join the dots of apparently disparate struggles, or to defend the immediate interests of the workers with whom we associate _as workers_, I just don’t think that such groups can ever constitute a component of the revolutionary subject in the way that the current expression of worker solidarity could perhaps do in the fullness of time.

ETA: Apologies for the mild jargon, but I'm writing as if talking to people with at least passing familiarity with the mainstream of leftist thought, not the way I'd talk to the people around me.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

*Socialist Party picket line report*

TRhe bit in bold makes clear how it's obviously a racist strike 

Report by phone from Alistair Tice (Yorkshire Socialist Party) on
the mass picket at the Lindsey total refinery North Lincolnshire.
Monday 2 February 2009
"The strike committee accepted the main demands of Keith Gibson and John Mckewan to put to the mass meeting today.
Keith is a Socialist Party member and on the strike committee and
John is a Socialist Party supporter and victimised worker from the
refinery.
The strike committee added an extra demand, calling for John to be reinstated into his job.
The demands were
No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action. All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement. Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available. Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for
a future for young people. *All Immigrant labour to be unionised. Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including
interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members.Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.* 
The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.
Prior to the meeting Keith and John (and their wives who had came to
support the strikers) had seen some BNP members in the car park and
told them that they were not welcome, with that the BNP cleared off.
Socialist Party members gave out over 700 leaflets putting our
position (which was now the position of the strike committee) and the
leaflet was welcomed. One worker (before he read the leaflet) thought
that were giving out BNP leaflets and protested that he was not a
racist and didn't support the BNP and was relieved when it was
explained to him that they were Socialist Party leaflets and supported
workers unity.
Keith is part of the negotiating committee that is now in
discussions with the management at the refinery. The strike is
continuing and looks as if it is spreading throughout the country at
the time of writing with Sellafield and Heysham nuclear plants out.
Workers at other plants, according to the BBC, have also decided to
stay out, these include Grangemouth and Longannon in Scotland.
Warrington and Staythope in Newark are also out as well.
The strikes are spreading from fiddlers ferry in Warrington to the Drax power station in Yorkshire."


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 2, 2009)

Watch here a Ch4 news report of a BNP activists being asked to leave

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=9823457001


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> TRhe bit in bold makes clear how it's obviously a racist strike


What are the demands of the strike?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Watch here a Ch4 news report of a BNP activists being asked to leave
> 
> http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=9823457001



Racist bastards!

Ta for the link.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, fair enough.  But I think the salient point here is migrant workers.


today it is, but it could just as well be cornish or lancashire workers tomorrow.  And there shouldn't be ANY difference in the treatment of native or migrant workers. Even the smallest difference puts up a block to solidarity.

Your analogies are all basically right (tho it wasn't jsut migrant workers who were used as scabs), but there is an important difference between then and now - there isn't a closed shop any more.  Then the 'native' workers were already de facto in a union, that isn't the case today (tho no doubt around 99% of workers are union members)


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> What are the demands of the strike?



No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action. 
All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement. 
Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available. 
Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for
a future for young people. 
All Immigrant labour to be unionised. 
Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including
interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members.Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
> All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
> Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
> Government and employer investment in proper training /
> ...


How does all that relate to BJ4BW?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Interesting to see that the media are only reporting on the foreign labour aspect of it.


Yup, typical.  I heard a guy at lunchtime from the Longanet picket line making very measured and sensible points, but still described by Reporting Scotland as "campaigning against immigrant workers".  He wasn't.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> How does all that relate to BJ4BW?



FFS what more do you want?! It's what the strike committee are going to put to the mass meeting, the strike committee agreed it after an SP member and supporter-both on the atrike committee-put it mforward. If the mass meeting accepts those demands it rather makes a mockery of the simplistic claim that it's a racist/anti-immigrant/italian labour strike.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> How does all that relate to BJ4BW?



Its called providing a lead rather than abdicating responsibility and leaving those workers open to the hypocritical platitudes of the BNP.

Spion - why one position for Hamas supporters and another for British workers when those workers arn't already fully fledged 'revolutionaries' you wish them to be?

This is a key test case in working out where any genuine left alternative in this country really comes from. Those who stand aside should be ashamed


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Yup, typical.  I heard a guy at lunchtime from the Longanet picket line making very measured and sensible points, but still described by Reporting Scotland as "campaigning against immigrant workers".  He wasn't.



Even more 'interesting' how some so-called revolutionaries uncritically swallow it


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> FFS what more do you want?!


An answer to my question without the petulance would do.

IE, how do those demands relate to Bf4bw? 

That's what we're seeing pickets calling for. Will the demands you list negate that or do they incorporate it?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Even more 'interesting' how some so-called revolutionaries uncritically swallow it


Indeed so.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

Someone has just asked me the following on another board, I doubt very much that it's true, but it'd be nice to have that confirmed before I tell him so:

"I also heard the IREM workers were chosen because its something to do with new machinery (IREMs ?) and they brought their own workforce as they have experience with it."


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Will the demands you list negate that or do they incorporate it?



What do you think???

And you cannot understand Fedayn's disgust at the implications from the toytown revolutionary


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Its called providing a lead rather than abdicating responsibility and leaving those workers open to the hypocritical platitudes of the BNP.
> 
> Spion - why one position for Hamas supporters and another for British workers when those workers arn't already fully fledged 'revolutionaries' you wish them to be?
> 
> This is a key test case in working out where any genuine left alternative in this country really comes from. Those who stand aside should be ashamed


Hmmm, very defensive. I'm just asking a question.

Do those demands negate Bf4bw or do they incorporate it?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Hmmm, very defensive. I'm just asking a question.
> 
> Do those demands negate Bf4bw or do they incorporate it?



'defensive', how so - i being offensive frankly


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> What do you think???
> 
> And you cannot understand Fedayn's disgust at the implications from the toytown revolutionary


A straight answer would do, thanks


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> A straight answer would do, thanks



see the previous post to that one then... (is that a case of 'do as i say not as i do' on your part?)


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
> All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
> Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
> Government and employer investment in proper training /
> ...



Yes, it's obviously all about building pan-European w/c solidarity.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> An answer to my question without the petulance would do.
> 
> IE, how do those demands relate to Bf4bw?
> 
> That's what we're seeing pickets calling for. Will the demands you list negate that or do they incorporate it?



What do you think? What do you think will happen if they accept those demands? Of course they will all be perfectly rounded out revolutionaties in an instant. FFS, I hope you stay away from the picket lines.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

DownwardDog said:


> Yes, it's obviously all about building pan-European w/c solidarity.



Who says it was? Who said it was some perfect strike? Away and wipe your nose.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Hmmm, very defensive. I'm just asking a question.
> 
> Do those demands negate Bf4bw or do they incorporate it?



You want them to be big bad racists don't you? No mention of the strikers telling the BNP to fuck off. Nah, you just want to be right and label tham wacists!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

DownwardDog said:


> Yes, it's obviously all about building pan-European w/c solidarity.



1.  They're throwing back in Gordon's face something he said.
2.  The guys there were given 90 day notices and then told they weren't being considered for the contract.
3.  The company is obviously undercutting pay and conditions.

Blaming the strikers for that seems the wrong analysis.


----------



## chilango (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> FFS what more do you want?! It's what the strike committee are going to put to the mass meeting, the strike committee agreed it after an SP member and supporter-both on the atrike committee-put it mforward. If the mass meeting accepts those demands it rather makes a mockery of the simplistic claim that it's a racist/anti-immigrant/italian labour strike.




Good. Interesting times.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

chilango said:


> Good. Interesting times.



Hopefully very interesting chilango yes.


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

On of the key factors in all this is the deskilling that has gone on under the last two regimes, the New Deal has failed but made milions and millions for people like A4E and its owner, Emma Harrison.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> You want them to be big bad racists don't you? No mention of the strikers telling the BNP to fuck off. Nah, you just want to be right and label tham wacists!


Settle down now. You're being hysterical.

I simply want to know what is to become of the bj4bw slogan that is so prominent should the demands you list be won and therefore what would constitute a victory for the strike.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Settle down now. You're being hysterical.
> 
> I simply want to know what is to become of the bj4bw slogan that is so prominent should the demands you list be won and therefore what would constitute a victory for the strike.



I think labelling it a racist inspired strike was hysterical.

I would hope that the demand, that was originally chucked back in Browns face, would start to dominish. I'm sure it won't go away completely as things arte never straightforward and linear.


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

'In his diaries for 1968, Tony Benn records the ugly scenes as workers marched past the Commons demanding that Labour adopt the anti-foreigner and ultra-nationalist rhetoric unleashed by Enoch Powell.

The simmering nationalist tensions stoked up by the Daily Mail's campaign against Polish workers or the vulgar anti-European xenophobia of William Hague and cohorts among Tory and Ukip MPs has now come to life, as construction workers demonstrate against a handful of Italian workers on the cold Humber coastline.'


The odious Dennis Macshane MP has come out with his views, etc, basically comparing the strikers to the Dockers in 68, bit like a few on here


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -far-right


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> I would hope that the demand, that was originally chucked back in Browns face, would start to dominish. I'm sure it won't go away completely as things arte never straightforward and linear.



You would think that the Spion would understand such basics wouldn't you?

all these innocent questions


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 2, 2009)

DownwardDog said:


> Yes, it's obviously all about building pan-European w/c solidarity.



Primarily it ought to be about building pan-European w/c solidarity!
So did the Brit Unions talk to the Italian Unions already?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> It really ought to be about building pan-European w/c solidarity!



And - if carefully and skillfully argued - it can be


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

The strike started over the employment of Italians on the site.

What would constitute a victory for the strike with regard to that original issue?

Would the 'diminishing' of the bj4bw slogan mean those workers retained their jobs or not?


----------



## chilango (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> And - if carefully and skillfully argued - it can be



...and if it is to win it has to be.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

Milford haven walkout - South Hook LNG terminal. 500 out.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> The strike started over the employment of Italians on the site.
> 
> What would constitute a victory for the strike with regard to that original issue?
> 
> Would the 'diminishing' of the bj4bw slogan mean those workers retained their jobs or not?



the strike started against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K - who wish to smash trade union rates and rights and livelihoods. That's why the recruitment agents have refused to consider the local workforce. Surprising that I should have to say this to a self-stated 'revolutionary' but the press does not always give the real story.

What do you think a 'victory' for the strike would therefore consist of? - the replacement of the hundreds of workers who previously worked there by cheaper labour using EU boss laws and without a whimper? surely not?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2009)

'Lord' Mandy should be doing his commons statement on this about now....wish I had the parliament channel


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Milford haven walkout - South Hook LNG terminal. 500 out.



racists


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

chilango said:


> ...and if it is to win it has to be.



absolutely - which is why some of the comments of some so-called revolutionaries on this thread is beneath contempt


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Lord' Mandy should be doing his commons statement on this about now....wish I had the parliament channel



Radio 5 i expect.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Radio 5 i expect.



aye spot on.

he's lying through his teeth about payments AFAIK


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2009)

now he harps on the sanctity of freedom of labour movememnt and how british workers have the right to work in europe.. yadda yadda,


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2009)

he's basically denied that there was discrimination, and denied that this was based on disparity of pay scales.

I believe he is full of shit.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

Nothing he says is of relevance really. It's not about him or his dept anymore. 

100 or so out at sizewell now.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> the strike started against the 'conscious blacking' of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the U.K - who wish to smash trade union rates and rights and livelihoods.


But it started with the slogan bj4bw, no? And since then local union reps (incl. SP ones) have tried (succeeded?) to get rid of that slogan and have replaced it with demands that do not (explicitly) say that? Is that the case?



dennisr said:


> What do you think a 'victory' for the strike would therefore consist of?


If it's a stike for bj4bw than a victory would be either the sacking of the Italians and implementation of employment practices that ensured bj4bws. If its demands are the ones you've repoduced here then there won't be the sacking of the Italians but will include TU monitoring of who should be employed or not, among other things

"Union controlled registering of unemployed and *locally *skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available." What about those that aren't local? This is pretty important.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> But it started with the slogan bj4bw, no?



Oh, how innocent your questions.

The origin of the slogan has been explained again and again and again on this thread. You can bet that some of those on the picket line have also swallowed the consequent illusions being sown uncritically (reinforced by the union bureaucracy and the media). The point is not to stand aside but to raise the real causes and real consequent tactics to be taken - to cut across any illusions because underlying the superficial are genuine fears and rightful concerns.

The workforce that was working there previously should retain their jobs and conditions first - those sacked/made redundant/vistimised should be reinstated - of course. That is ABC isn't it? even to a toytowner like you?? I mean not simply be replaced at the whim (or greed to be more accurate) of the employers by a more maliable, even less secure workforce.

You realise that the more you skwirm and avoid the consequences of your parties 'position' with your weaseling questions (because that is what these questions are about arn't they - self-legitimisation) the more you are exposed don't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

I think spion is an 'indepedent', dennis - i might be wrong.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Oh, how evasive your responses. And the abuse. You're clearly rattled by straighforward questions. it stinks

I'm for no job cuts, no pay cuts, no outsourcing, unionisation of migrant workers brought in, massive investment to create jobs, and I'd be for strikes to enforce any of those things. I will never support a strike for bj4bw tho. Shame on you if you do.

And once again - "Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available." What about those that aren't local?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Its easy to 'rant' on the internet incoherently


dammit, I thought I'd managed a relatively coherent rant.


----------



## Dissident Junk (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> "Union controlled registering of unemployed and *locally *skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available." What about those that aren't local? This is pretty important.



Weirdly, Spion, you've just made me think of something with regards to this.

The ECHR in Article 8 provides the right to respect for one's family life. 

Now surely, respect for one's family life means that the state does not put in place policies that undermine family life -- like, say, supporting the implementation of specific economic policies that result in said citizen needing to work half way across Europe, hundred of miles away from said family and said 'family life'. For surely, family life means you have a life with your family, ie. you live with them. 

Now you could argue that EU nations, by supporting a europe wide market for labour, supporting labour migration far from point of origin and not supporting local people's access to local jobs, they are essentially contravening this right. 

As is someone like Mandelson suggesting British strikers could work in Europe.

If the State can't deport an EU national citizen that has committed a crime back to his country of citizenship because he has family in the UK, then surely, the State cannot support policies that result in British citizens having to export themselves unwillingly in order to earn money, nor can it advocate this process -- it contravenes the right to family life for those workers. 

_Mibbe._ 

My thinking there is a bit messy, but I think it has got some, albeit, wobbly legs.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 2, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> Weirdly, Spion, you've just made me think of something with regards to this.
> 
> The ECHR in Article 8 provides the right to respect for one's family life.
> 
> ...



Interesting point.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Oh, how evasive your responses. And the abuse. You're clearly rattled by straighforward questions. it stinks
> 
> I'm for no job cuts, no pay cuts, no outsourcing, unionisation of migrant workers brought in, massive investment to create jobs, and I'd be for strikes to enforce any of those things. I will never support a strike for bj4bw tho. Shame on you if you do.
> 
> And once again - "Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available." What about those that aren't local?



No - you are 'reserving judgement'. These workers have been replaced - got rid off, cast on the scrap heap, replaced without a 'by your leave' by other imported to live in floating barracks. Old agreements between workforce and employer tossed aside. This is NOT about bj4bw. You should be ashamed for 'reserving judgement' - leaving the field open to the likes of the BNP.

You are quibbling over words - like nero fiddling while rome burns.

rattled!! - i'm simply exasperated by the level of idiocy. evasive - you are the one with the implications and naunces - with the innocent questions.

this is the real world - you can either stand aside or take a stand with those workers and with their legitimate demands (and therefore assisting in cutting across thr illusions that can also develop) or against them and with bosses and EU laws - its that simple.

Anyway - I always had the impression you were an SWP member, or ex-member or fellow traveller Spion - part of the reason that I am being sharp with you - have I got that bit wrong?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

Dissident Junk said:


> The ECHR in Article 8 provides the right to respect for one's family life....


someone on the bearfacts site asked the same question. 

It'd make an interesting case, tho I suspect the chances of the judges deciding that a 'legally entered into contract of employment' was anything but totally fair are pretty minimal


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> 'Lord' Mandy should be doing his commons statement on this about now....wish I had the parliament channel


He says the subcontractor isn't undercutting pay and conditions.

So that's alright, then.  We can trust whatever _he_ says.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

Reported somewhere else, racist thugs are touring the bars near the plant looking for Italians to beat up. Several of them have quit and gone home in fear of their safety.

Has any solidarity has been sought from the Italian workers?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Reported somewhere else, racist thugs are touring the bars near the plant looking for Italians to beat up. Several of them have quit and gone home in fear of their safety.
> 
> Has any solidarity has been sought from the Italian workers?



reported where?  Sounds very much like a complete load of shit. Read the thread for the answer to your other q


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Reported somewhere else, racist thugs are touring the bars near the plant looking for Italians to beat up. Several of them have quit and gone home in fear of their safety.
> 
> Has any solidarity has been sought from the Italian workers?



yeah spread rumours like this - a great way to destroy the movement


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> reported where?


 
_Lenin's Tomb_ the original source.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

So link to it, post the thing - say where it's from - put it in some context. Don't pass on rumour as fact.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> _Lenin's Tomb_ the original source.



aah well, he'll be posting the complete opposite tomorrow then 

Actually,the original source appears to be the Mirror, with some very vague comments, which dont come from direct quotes

Stil, they MUST all be a bunch of racists musn't they MC?


----------



## rover07 (Feb 2, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> He says the subcontractor isn't undercutting pay and conditions.
> 
> _he_ says.



I dont think they are. The Italians are not working for less money. A Unite spokesman said as much the other day.

Its about the distribution of work, thats the problem. imo


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> Actually,the original source appears to be the Mirror, with some very vague comments, which dont come from direct quotes


beg your pardon, there is ONE quote - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-could-cause-power-shortages-115875-21090435/


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So link to it, post the thing - say where it's from - put it in some context. Don't pass on rumour as fact.


 
apologies - didn't mean to.

Post #32


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion, British jobs for British workers is a crap demand and it'd be worrying if this was the main thrust of the strike (it isn't), but to dismiss everything that's happening here because of a shit, nationalist slogan that's been adopted by a few people (and used by the media as a stick to beat the strikers with) is incredibly dim, especially given your past support for Hamas.

These are the only concrete demands (as opposed to slogans and attempted hijackings by the BNP) that I've seen come out of this dispute:


> No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.
> All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.
> Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.
> Government and employer investment in proper training / apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.
> ...


Hardly nationalist demands.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> Stil, they MUST all be a bunch of racists musn't they MC?


 
Now, now, words in my mouth.

If I thought that I'd have given up years ago and ended up like posternumbers et al.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> especially given your past support for Hamas.


That parallel is the dimmest ever. The only way it could be analagous to the Gaza thing is if the strkers were attacked by the cops, and I'd defend them against that.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Spion, British jobs for British workers is a crap demand and it'd be worrying if this was the main thrust of the strike (it isn't), but to dismiss everything that's happening here because of a shit, nationalist slogan that's been adopted by a few people (and used by the media as a stick to beat the strikers with) is incredibly dim, especially given your past support for Hamas.
> 
> These are the only concrete demands (as opposed to slogans and attempted hijackings by the BNP) that I've seen come out of this dispute:
> 
> Hardly nationalist demands.



Where did they come from In Bloom?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> That parallel is the dimmest ever. The only way it could be analagous to the Gaza thing is if the strkers were attacked by the cops, and I'd defend them against that.



Surely you jest


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> That parallel is the dimmest ever. The only way it could be analagous to the Gaza thing is if the strkers were attacked by the cops, and I'd defend them against that.


So you'll defend them against being attacked by the cops, but you won't support them fighting against redundancies and unemployment unless they come into it with perfect politics?


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Now, now, words in my mouth.
> 
> If I thought that I'd have given up years ago.



well you have given up trying to be particularly coherent :0

If this is not your aim, why are you posting up totally unsubstantiated rumours, (and then not even sourcing them correctly)?

The only logical explanation is that you are desperately keen to show that the strikers are racist.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Where did they come from In Bloom?


Put forward by two SP members on the committee, to be voted on at the mass meeting today.  Hopefully they'll go through.

Edit: In fact, I only scan read that before, it appears the meeting agreed to them (sudden changes of tense make my head hurt).


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> These are the only concrete demands (as opposed to slogans and attempted hijackings by the BNP) that I've seen come out of this dispute:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Most of those are fine, but they'd make no difference to the existing situation as far as I can tell, only future work.

But then there's the one about TU control of employment of 'local' labour. Why only local labour? I've had no clarification of what that means, but an unsympathetic reading would see it as 'local jobs for local people'


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Put forward by two SP members on the committee, to be voted on at the mass meeting today.  Hopefully they'll go through.



...



> The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Most of those are fine, but they'd make no difference to the existing situation as far as I can tell, only future work.
> 
> But then there's the one about TU control of employment of 'local' labour. Why only local labour? I've had no clarification of what that means, but an unsympathetic reading would see it as 'local jobs for local people'


As long as that includes local migrants and people already resident in the area but originally from elsewhere in the UK, does it matter?  Also, the inclusion of the Italian workers would either prove that their pay and conditions were on a par with local workers or allow those pay and conditions to be brought into line with that.

Bit confused as to why they don't include reinstatement for the workers who've been made redundant though.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> ...
> 
> 
> > The mass meeting overwhelmingly voted for the demands put to them by the strike committee.



Any link for this DC??


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Any link for this DC??


It's in that SP link that I posted 

The first bit, up to the demands, appears to have been written about before the meeting, and then the bit afterwards refers to the demands being passed at the meeting.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Has any solidarity has been sought from the Italian workers?



I sure hope so. 



			
				MC5 said:
			
		

> Reported somewhere else, racist thugs are touring the bars near the plant looking for Italians to beat up. Several of them have quit and gone home in fear of their safety.


Very frightening news - it's like 1905 all over again


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> It's in that SP link that I posted
> 
> The first bit, up to the demands, appears to have been written about before the meeting, and then the bit afterwards refers to the demands being passed at the meeting.



Excellent, perhaps Spion might support the strikers now, important he approves of their demands you know.


----------



## Scrus (Feb 2, 2009)

This action seems to be fuelled by a jingoistic press though.  Jobs for local people??? These are BNP slogans. It was likely that there were going to be more strike action as a result of the Recession but it seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. It should be the owners of industry that are the targets not fellow workers. It's such a long time since there has been industrial action on this scale in the UK that everyone wants to support it, but there is probably going to be a lot more, this is the wrong place to start imo.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> well you have given up trying to be particularly coherent :0
> 
> If this is not your aim, why are you posting up totally unsubstantiated rumours, (and then not even sourcing them correctly)?
> 
> The only logical explanation is that you are desperately keen to show that the strikers are racist.


 
Bullshit. I want to know what the far-right is up to and what, if any, influence they are having on events.

The unsubstantiated rumour is one I would like to substantiate. I thought posting it here may get an answer? Judging by the response, no one knows. Fine. I'll take it as bollocks until I hear otherwise.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

> <snip>with nominating rights as work becomes available.



genuine question... how would this work in practice?

would it be on a longest unemployed person on the list who's qualified for the job get's the work basis, or erm what?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Scrus said:


> This action seems to be fuelled by a jingoistic press though.  Jobs for local people??? These are BNP slogans. It was likely that there were going to be more strike action as a result of the Recession but it seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. It should be the owners of industry that are the targets not fellow workers. It's such a long time since there has been industrial action on this scale in the UK that everyone wants to support it, but there is probably going to be a lot more, this is the wrong place to start imo.


So you'd support things like demands that migrant workers are given the same pay and conditions?  Maybe even demands that they are assisted in participating in the same union as their workmates via union provided translaters?  If only there were a massive group of striking workers who'd just agreed on something like that 

The "jingoistic press" have been caught on the backfoot with this one, and they've been trying as hard as they can to overemphasise every single instance of nationalism they can find.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> As long as that includes local migrants and people already resident in the area but originally from elsewhere in the UK, does it matter?


Are you saying it is 'local jobs for local people'?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Are you saying it is 'local jobs for local people'?


local jobs for people who live locally... maybe?


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Excellent, perhaps Spion might support the strikers now, important he approves of their demands you know.


I can't understand why a few questions sparks such deep concern from you, 'comrade'. Well, I can actually


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> local jobs for people who live locally... maybe?


LOLz


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 2, 2009)

This seems to me a straightforward case of a PR 'wedge strategy' being used to attack broader solidarity with the striking workers. 

In this case the wedge being applied is the accusation of racism, deftly suggested by the media as the motivation for the strikes.

This does several things:

1) it attracts actual racists, thereby giving the media something to concrete to point to 
2) makes the striking workers' cause potentially toxic for those who buy the media/PR line 
3) distracts the public from the economic issues involved by supplying an ignoble alternative explanation for the strikes and making that the media talking point that they spend most of their time focussing on.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Are you saying it is 'local jobs for local people'?


Well, people who live locally, which is fair enough, IMO.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

It's not as if they're proposing some mechanism to check that the people listed are *local* in the sense that they are originally from the area.


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Now, now, words in my mouth.
> 
> If I thought that I'd have given up years ago and ended up like posternumbers et al.



Shut up you fucking spaz


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> I can't understand why a few questions sparks such deep concern from you, 'comrade'. Well, I can actually



What concerns me then Spion, do tell enlighten us all?!


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

I think the only racism here is not employing British workers?What's up with an Italian business employing Italian workers over British workers?Nazi cunts!!!!!!


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Well, people who live locally, which is fair enough, IMO.  What could possibly be wrong with that?


Why on earth should jobs be only available to locals?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Shut up you fucking spaz


 
Shot at any 'Paki's' lately?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Why on earth should jobs be only available to locals?


That's not what it actually says though, is it?


> Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.


In other words, a register of _unionised_ workers who live locally and can be put forward as candidates for jobs by the union branch.  Seems like an excellent way for local branches to practice a bit of practical solidarity with their unemployed FWs.

Anyway, what is your problem with the demand?  And what do you think it suggests about the strikers?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Why on earth should jobs be only available to locals?


is it not saying that jobs should be advertised locally first, then advertised wider if nobody suitable is available who lives locally?

seems fair enough to me


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Shot at any 'Paki's' lately?



Shut the fuck up............that's the general feeling towards you these days


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Shut the fuck up............that's the general feeling towards you these days


 
Coke - the real thing.


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Anyway, what is your problem with the demand?  And what do you think it suggests about the strikers?


It doesn't 'suggest' anything - it indicates very clearly there is some negative sentiment regarding people who are not 'local'. Why does it need to mention 'local' at all if the intention is not to favour local people?


----------



## treelover (Feb 2, 2009)

'Alle Raeder stehen still, wenn der Arbeiter es will'


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> It doesn't 'suggest' anything - it indicates very clearly there is some negative sentiment regarding people who are not 'local'. Why does it need to mention 'local' at all if the intention is not to favour local people?


there's a big difference between 'local people' meaning people who were born locally and can trace their family line back several generations locally... which can essentially be taken as code for it being a racist viewpoint... and the more inclusive 'local people' which just means people who're living in the local area regardless of where they were born, or what their skin colour is.

nothing to be ashamed of in favouring local people for jobs if it's the latter version of local people, and lots to be said in favour of it IMO... and that's my take on what the strikers mean by it as well.


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

I think the company who have the contract are racist in that they didn't want British workers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> nothing to be ashamed of in favouring local people for jobs if it's the latter version of local people, and lots to be said in favour of it IMO... and that's my take on what the strikers mean by it as well.


sort of busts nationally-agreed union positions tho doesn't it - and makes me wonder why strikers from other parts of the Uk would support it, unless they also want a divided workforce


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> nothing to be ashamed of in favouring local people for jobs if it's the latter version of local people, and lots to be said in favour of it IMO... and that's my take on what the strikers mean by it as well.



At a guess i'd say you're wrong...........The protesters are fucking fuming that foreignrs have have taken the jobs of brits


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

Your mob were told to leave the picket - not welcome.


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Your mob were told to leave the picket - not welcome.



LOL get with the programme/reality dick head.......seriouslly


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> there's a big difference between 'local people' meaning people who were born locally and can trace their family line back several generations locally... which can essentially be taken as code for it being a racist viewpoint... and the more inclusive 'local people' which just means people who're living in the local area regardless of where they were born, or what their skin colour is.
> 
> nothing to be ashamed of in favouring local people for jobs if it's the latter version of local people, and lots to be said in favour of it IMO... and that's my take on what the strikers mean by it as well.


This.

Spion, do you have any evidence that the *Socialist Party* members who proposed these demands did so out of xenophobia?  It looks more to me like an attempt to deracialise the dispute over jobs by making it about creating a means for the union to help unemployed people who live nearby into work.  Notice that the demand doesn't actually refer to 'local people', by the way.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> LOL get with the programme/reality dick head.......seriouslly



Which means what exactly?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> LOL get with the programme/reality dick head.......seriouslly


What's the matter, badco, believe the BBC did you?


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> 'local people',



Lets be honest you should replace  ''local people'' with ''british people''

That's what people are thinking


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Lets be honest you should replace  ''local people'' with ''british people''
> 
> That's what people are thinking



So, when those demands were passed by a mass meeting of the strikers at Lindsay why didn't they do exactly what you say above? Do let us in on your greater knowledge.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

more bad news - eddie stobbart's closing it's scunthorpe depot


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> So, when those demands were passed by a mass meeting of the strikers at Lindsay why didn't they do exactly what you say above? Do let us in on your greater knowledge.



That post has confused me.Can you explain in more detail please


----------



## Spion (Feb 2, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> This.
> 
> Spion, do you have any evidence that the *Socialist Party* members who proposed these demands did so out of xenophobia?


The only 'evidence' I have of anything is the inclusion of the word local in one line of a set of demands. But I'd gladly hear some explanation of why it is there


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> The only 'evidence' I have of anything is the inclusion of the word local in one line of a set of demands. But I'd gladly hear some explanation of why it is there



Still don'y understand


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Lets be honest you should replace  ''local people'' with ''british people''
> 
> That's what people are thinking


so, if it was 300 cornish lads (or scots, or geordies or whatever) being shipped in en masse to do the work and refusing to employ local workers, then the local lads would all be fine with that would they?

we're not talking about the odd person here and there, we're talking about a contract for 300 jobs, with all 300 of the jobs going to people from outside the area... in this case to a firm employing Italian and Portugese workers... but it's not the fact their Italian or Portugese that's the problem is it, it's the fact that no local workers are going to be employed on the contract.... and the perception (fact?) that they're being used to undermine nationally agreed pay agreements.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> we're not talking about the odd person here


We are: badco.


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> so, if it was 300 cornish lads (or scots, or geordies or whatever) being shipped in en masse to do the work and refusing to employ local workers, then the local lads would all be fine with that would they?
> 
> we're not talking about the odd person here and there, we're talking about a contract for 300 jobs, with all 300 of the jobs going to people from outside the area... in this case to a firm employing Italian and Portugese workers... but it's not the fact their Italian or Portugese that's the problem is it, it's the fact that no local workers are going to be employed on the contract.



Did the placards say british jobs for local workers?

I think these protests sum up the feelings of working class brits brilliantelly


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

...and they chased you off the picket


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 2, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> ...and they chased you off the picket


Which sums up feelings of working class Britons brilliantly.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> That post has confused me.Can you explain in more detail please



You said, and I quote, *"Lets be honest you should replace ''local people'' with ''british people'' That's what people are thinking"*. I then pointed out that the demands that included the point *Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available* was supported overwhelmingly by strikers at the Lindsay refinery. Why, if they supported and were thinking what you claim, did they not change it then? Why wasn't there a simple demand of no foreigners. Why was a demand included, and overwhelmingly supported, specifically calling for help for immigrant workers if it was simplistically about antagonism towards foreign workers?


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Why wasn't there a simple demand of no foreigners. Why was a demand included, and overwhelmingly supported, specifically calling for help for immigrant workers if it was simplistically about antagonism towards foreign workers?



Don't know


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> sort of busts nationally-agreed union positions tho doesn't it - and makes me wonder why strikers from other parts of the Uk would support it, unless they also want a divided workforce


 
Had a mate (dead now) who worked on power stations accross the country, along with many others who were on contract. In this case carrying out specialist laggiing work. Hard to see how restricting work to 'locals' would help workers in this position.


----------



## editor (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Shut up you fucking spaz


Not acceptable.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Don't know



But, even though you admit you don't know why such a demand was overwhelmingly supported, you still tell us it's about anger towards foreign workers! How do you square that circle?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 2, 2009)

I've worked construction sites as an industrial cleaner. Relations between Brit workers and the poles or romanians were civil (if the bog graffitti was xenophopic, but then it usually is regardless).

This isn't an issue of foriegn workers sharing a job, but an entire workforce displaced in favour of cheaper imported labour.


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> But, even though you admit you don't know why such a demand was overwhelmingly supported, you still tell us it's about anger towards foreign workers! How do you square that circle?



Which demand?


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> so, if it was 300 cornish lads (or scots, or geordies or whatever) being shipped in en masse to do the work and refusing to employ local workers, then the local lads would all be fine with that would they?




Probably not.......But it wouldn't be such a fucking kick in the face as getting in people who receive half your wage for exactly that reason

If you people were replaced in your jobs by people working at half your pay how would you feel?(I know that is not the case in this situation)


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Which demand?


In fact 2 demands, these 2...



> All Immigrant labour to be unionised.
> 
> Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.



If the strike was simply about what you say why were the above 2 demands overwhelmingly supported by the mass meeting of strikers?


----------



## badco (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> so, if it was 300 cornish lads (or scots, or geordies or whatever) being shipped in en masse to do the work and refusing to employ local workers, then the local lads would all be fine with that would they?



And lets be honest these protest aren't about that are they................They're about foreign workers taking british jobs........hence the placards

Don't be so pedantic


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 2, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Primarily it ought to be about building pan-European w/c solidarity!
> So did the Brit Unions talk to the Italian Unions already?


 lol! talk about running before you can walk! lets support them if we can and get some sort of a win under our belt first


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 2, 2009)

Spion said:


> Why on earth should jobs be only available to locals?


 it seems you do not know the first thing about trade unionism 

- the key thing we have as a class is power to withdraw labour - that is why control of labour is critical - that is why this issue is so key and has been so destructive over the last few years - forcing capital to employ locally give our class power - 

when you get local people employed rates of union density are always higher

local jobs for local people also makes for sustainable work - in this case that is not entirely relevent as it is a project requiring skilled outside labour - so the local would mean in the area or region instead of busing in from hundreds of miles away - though many of the jobs could be local

the demand also makes 100% sense to anyone who lives and works in the real world? you got kids? mine is looking for work at the moment, unsuccessfully - people rightly put the nearest and dearest first .. this is NOT wrong .. 

the deal is to generalise that but you can not generalise solidarity from a divided and beaten and fragmented class .. we need to get class power where we live and work before we will get more generalised solidarity


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the demand also makes 100% sense to anyone who lives and works in the real world? you got kids? mine is looking for work at the moment, unsuccessfully - people rightly put the nearest and dearest first .. this is NOT wrong ..


It mightn't be but it's got feck all to do with trades unionism, solidarity or socialism.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 2, 2009)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It mightn't be but it's got feck all to do with trades unionism, solidarity or socialism.


 half agree  half disagree .. but read the rest of my post .. organising locally and demanding local work  has everything to do with organising succesfully, with trade unionism and with solidarity .. why were the miners so strong? 

but i part agree as trade unionism of itself has nowt to do with socialism ..but without trade unionism there is NO chance of socialism .. the uk soft left has tried to bypass the w/c on its m/c road to socialism for too long ..


----------



## e19896 (Feb 2, 2009)

from The Socialist Party:



> Update on the spreading strikes by construction engineers in the refinery and power industry
> Report by phone from Alistair Tice (Yorkshire Socialist Party) on the mass picket at the Lindsey total refinery North Lincolnshire. Monday 2 February 2009
> 
> “The strike committee accepted the main demands of Keith Gibson and John Mckewan to put to the mass meeting today.
> ...


----------



## bolshiebhoy (Feb 2, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> half agree  half disagree .. but read the rest of my post .. organising locally and demanding local work  has everything to do with organising succesfully, with trade unionism and with solidarity .. why were the miners so strong?


You ever seen Matewan? Now that's how miners dealt successfully with the issue of local vs foreign labour. Not by demanding the foreigners be kept out.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 2, 2009)

badco said:


> Probably not.......But it wouldn't be such a fucking kick in the face as getting in people who receive half your wage for exactly that reason
> 
> If you people were replaced in your jobs by people working at half your pay how would you feel?(I know that is not the case in this situation)


I'd feel fucked off, but I'd feel fucked off because the tossers in charge had decided to try to undermine existing pay and conditions agreements by bringing in cheaper labour from outside the area, not fucked off because they'd specifically decided to employ foreigners.



badco said:


> And lets be honest these protest aren't about that are they................They're about foreign workers taking british jobs........hence the placards
> 
> Don't be so pedantic


it's pedantry with a purpose though - to not allow the cause of the strike to be portrayed as racism, when it's actually about legitimate campaign to ensure the multinational corporation keeps employing local people of all races at agreed rates, rather than using a loophole in the law to allow them to import cheaper labour from other countries where workers have not been as successful in maintaining pay and conditions as they have here.

surely you can see that if this is portrayed as a racist dispute, the strikers will lose public support, and be much less likely to achieve their aims.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 2, 2009)

free spirit said:


> <snip> surely you can see that if this is portrayed as a racist dispute, the strikers will lose public support, and be much less likely to achieve their aims.



That's the whole point. It's a really neat strategy. On the one hand, portraying it as a racist dispute causes the BNP to opportunistically descend on it, which in turn provides some actual racists as 'evidence'. On the other hand, not only does the faintest whiff of racism cause a whole bunch of potential supporters to withdraw their solidarity, but it provides an exciting talking point for the capitalist media which allows the racism issue to dominate their coverage and ignore the 'scab labour brought in to increase profits at the expense of workers' issue.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

bolshiebhoy said:


> It mightn't be but it's got feck all to do with trades unionism, solidarity or socialism.



You're right.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

Paul Mason on newsnight shortly, hopefully will idiots like MC5 just why he is being an idiot.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> Paul Mason on newsnight shortly, hopefully will idiots like MC5 just why he is being an idiot.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

what is your point?  You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.

one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.

"We can't work along these Portuguese or Eyeties" said the main news. Obviously 'eyeties' isn't exactly right on, so he must jsut be a bigot, right?

On Newsnight it transpired he said at least three more words - _"because they're segregated."_.

Where's that link to BBC complaints gone again?


----------



## starfish2000 (Feb 2, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> WTF? Here's a simple fact tl, the EU has been a single labour market for nearly 20 years. It's nothing to do with being a 'middle class global citizen' - UK construction workers were making up a higher % of UK employees in Europe a long time before the m/c were there - in fact because of the differences in things like law, teaching, medcine and lots of other m.c jobs in some respects it's _easier_ getting trade work in the EU because there's a greater shared skills base and more commonality in standards - also driven by the EU.
> 
> So please, drop your own easy stereotyping - those who work in construction were global workers while I was still in school.



Auf Wieder.....damn I know what you mean

But are we're gonna see Global Citizens like Polish Company Directors and Newspaper Journalists undercutting Guardian/Mail/Telegraph writers and British CEO's are we?

David Dimbleby is gonna be replaced by someone from the EU on 50% less?

This global movement only applies to certain people lets not pretend.

I think this is just gonna hand the BNP an increase in Parish and thats disturbing in the extreme.


----------



## BarryB (Feb 2, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> it seems you do not know the first thing about trade unionism
> 
> - the key thing we have as a class is power to withdraw labour - that is why control of labour is critical - that is why this issue is so key and has been so destructive over the last few years - forcing capital to employ locally give our class power -
> 
> ...




I agree that at least to a certain extent there should be local jobs for local people. Thats why on some developments in Hackney the Planning sub committtee impose a condition that there should be a percentage of local labour employed. The most recent instance is for the construction of a school at Woodberry Grove where we have imposed a condition that at least 25% of the workforce should be local labour which means that at the time they are taken on they have to live in Hackney. They can be of any nationality.

BarryB


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> what is your point?  You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...



Didn't see the report, will watch it in the morning, but well done Mr Mason.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

BarryB said:


> I agree that at least to a certain extent there should be local jobs for local people. Thats why on some developments in Hackney the Planning sub committtee impose a condition that there should be a percentage of local labour employed. The most recent instance is for the construction of a school at Woodberry Grove where we have imposed a condition that at least 25% of the workforce should be local labour which means that at the time they are taken on they have to live in Hackney. They can be of any nationality.
> 
> BarryB



that's illegal under EU procurement rules, isn't it?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> what is your point?  You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...



What??? Absolutely fucking disgraceful


----------



## BarryB (Feb 2, 2009)

belboid said:


> that's illegal under EU procurement rules, isn't it?



Im sure that if it was illegal the Councils planning lawyer would ensure that the Planning sub committee are made aware of this.

BarryB


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

hmm, interesting.  I was at a T&G conference last week, in a workshop on contracts & social contracts, and we quite explicitly told we couldn't insist on any 'social clause' such as that, under those EU regs.  Discriminatory against Latvian workers.


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

MC5 said:


>



sorry, only just got your point!

Good of you to admit being a puppet of the bosses on this one


----------



## belboid (Feb 2, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> What??? Absolutely fucking disgraceful



was wanting to check before writing to the BBC to complain that I hadn't misheard. Altho the programme isn't online yet, someone on the Permanent Revolution site has jsut made the exact same point (http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/2544) so http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaints_stage1.shtml here I come.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> what is your point? You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...



blimey, thats pretty dodgy, and puts a whole different perspective on that guys comments, not that I'm one for scanning, etc at the drop of a hat


----------



## elbows (Feb 3, 2009)

Taking soundbites out of context is one of the basic elements of the TV reality distortion effect.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> These strikes are the upshot of a decade of blunt mantra
> Brown's tin-eared faith in unchecked globalisation has propelled inequality. And workers are right to fear that worse is to come
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/gordon-brown-economic-policy
> ...




Now Polly has put her oar in and amazingly it looks lke she is backing the strikers


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

yup, interesting article. she concludes that Brown is yesterdays man.  i don't follow her generally, but this seems like a defining break for her?

these are fascinating days, seeing those who are finally getting it and those who don't.


----------



## elbows (Feb 3, 2009)

I like her article, a good dose of sense in it.

I am reminded of a quote from some leaked minutes to do with GATS talks:



> Malcolm McKinnon (DTI) said that the pro-GATS case was vulnerable when the NGOs asked for proof of where the economic benefits of liberalisation lay.



http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/2337.html

Im sure there are other nuggets of interest in some of the other minutes too:

http://www.gatswatch.org/LOTIS/LOTISapp1.html

Since then things have remained mostly stalled at the WTO level, but things have obviously progressed on a regional level, in our case the EU. I was just starting to learn about this sort of stuff at the global WTO level when I got totally distracted by Bush & 9/11. Not sure if I need to learn all the detail now, or if bigger economic & social forces have come into play and thus a much broader struggle. Or maybe detail matters more than ever now that the genie is out of the bottle.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2009)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...al-strike-as-industrial-action-escalates.html

The right-wing press are getting REALLY worried about this.


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

Michael Meacher takes a pro-strike position, some decent content in there for the ignorant amongst us like myself:



> What however is very worrying - since this could be the first flashpoint out of many in future - is that IREM is bringing in foreign workers because they are entitled under the Bolkestein free market directive (Bolkestein was a right-wing Dutch Christian Democrat) to pay significantly below local pay rates, so long as it is not below the national minimum wage. This entitlement was recently reinforced by the notorious Laval case at the European Court of Justice where the ECJ ruled that a company was legally entitled to import foreign workers and pay them at the rate prevailing in the country from which they come (e.g. Latvia), not the rate prevailing at the place where the work was to be undertaken. This established a deregulated labour market place where the employer's right to pay the lowest rates was elevated above the unions' collectively negotiated local rate. This judge-made law is a timebomb destined to cause severe labour conflict till it is repealed.


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

elbows said:


> Taking soundbites out of context is one of the basic elements of the TV reality distortion effect.



Yep, but it's pretty fucking wrong if the BBC have been doing it again, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson by now...


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

a good background piece on the Laval case, particularly noteworthy was the role of the Confederation of Swedish Employers, Svenskt Näringsliv (Swedish equivalent of the CBI) who took the case on in order to attack the 'Swedish Model'
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/swed-j27.shtml


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Now Polly has put her oar in and amazingly it looks lke she is backing the strikers


I did read that and it was quite good .i usually ignore her articles because she usually talks bollocks


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> "We can't work along these Portuguese or Eyeties" said the main news. Obviously 'eyeties' isn't exactly right on, so he must jsut be a bigot, right?
> 
> On Newsnight it transpired he said at least three more words - _"because they're segregated."_.



And here are the two quotes compared and contrasted, via the iPlayer footage:


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

aah, nice one fridge


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 3, 2009)

Listening to the voice it's also worth noting that Nick Robinson was a chair of the Young Conservatives in the mid-80s


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

Why haven't these strikers been sacked yet? It is an illegal strike.

Some Thatcher union smashing is needed.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...al-strike-as-industrial-action-escalates.html
> 
> The right-wing press are getting REALLY worried about this.



 so the workers fairweather 'brit' friends are deserting them already


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Why haven't these strikers been sacked yet? It is an illegal strike.
> 
> Some Thatcher union smashing is needed.



fuck off


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Why haven't these strikers been sacked yet? It is an illegal strike.
> 
> Some Thatcher union smashing is needed.



LOL, nice try Mr Troll.

Mandleson hasn't got the balls Thatcher had, I guess.

I agree with the strike - why the fuck should some Italian or Portugese lads be sending (smaller) wage packets straight home, when the local lads would keep their wages in the immediate community?

Local shops and amenities need all the help they can get, poaching cheap labour from the other side of the EU isn't going to help.

Plus of course it's Total at the centre of this, who are large scale polluting cunts.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> what is your point?  You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...


fuck me that's appalling editorial bias, I saw that on the news and did a proper double take, but had a feeling it was badly edited as it looked like he'd not finished his sentence. 

complaints to the bbc methinks?


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> fuck off



Is that the best you can do? These striking tits need to be fired, and fired yesterday.

You can't simply expect jobs because you're British - its a highly competitive global economy and if you want the job then you have to be better then the next guy. If you're more expensive then you better be worth it. 

These tits simply are not.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Why haven't these strikers been sacked yet? It is an illegal strike.
> 
> Some Thatcher union smashing is needed.



Thatcher is dead


----------



## rover07 (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Is that the best you can do? These striking tits need to be fired, and fired yesterday.
> 
> You can't simply expect jobs because you're British - its a highly competitive global economy and if you want the job then you have to be better then the next guy. If you're more expensive then you better be worth it.
> 
> These tits simply are not.



Global economy, competition, blah, blah, blah

Thats all very nice and academic. Its power that counts. Striking is about exercising power.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And here are the two quotes compared and contrasted, via the iPlayer footage:


Cheers Fridge.

Is that link OK to include in complaints etc?


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> fuck me that's appalling editorial bias



When I worked for the BBC I'd have been sacked for that shit.

Definitely complaints time.

newsonline.complaints@bbc.co.uk

03700 100 222

When you call, it’s the normal “press 1 for…” and then you’re through. 

I think it’s 3 for complaints.

Helen Boaden, Director of BBC news
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk

Peter Horrocks, Head of BBC TV News
Email: peter.horrocks@bbc.co.uk

Richard Sambrook, Director of the World Service and Global News
Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Is that the best you can do? These striking tits need to be fired, and fired yesterday.
> 
> You can't simply expect jobs because you're British - its a highly competitive global economy and if you want the job then you have to be better then the next guy. If you're more expensive then you better be worth it.
> 
> These tits simply are not.



ignore everybody - it's just not worth it and it will derail the thread


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Is that the best you can do? These striking tits need to be fired, and fired yesterday.
> 
> You can't simply expect jobs because you're British - its a highly competitive global economy and if you want the job then you have to be better then the next guy. If you're more expensive then you better be worth it.
> 
> These tits simply are not.



The only tit here is you pal.

You can expect jobs in your own town, otherwise companies like Total who pollute the fuck out of the local area can fuck off.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Is that the best you can do? These striking tits need to be fired, and fired yesterday.
> 
> You can't simply expect jobs because you're British - its a highly competitive global economy and if you want the job then you have to be better then the next guy. If you're more expensive then you better be worth it.
> 
> These tits simply are not.


because it's that simple isn't it?

btw another factor that links into what I was saying earlier about the social contract with the local community is that when the refinery is eventually closed, historical precedent and current legislation indicates that it will eventually be the local taxpayers who pick up the bill for cleaning up the site... which is yet another arguement in favour of them needing to employ local workers who pay council tax to the local council, income tax to the national government, and businesses who pay business rates to the local council and corporation tax to the national government.

in other words it's not just the local workers getting screwed by this, it's all local and national tax payers... or more precisely, the next generation of local and national tax payers who'll have to pick up the tab eventually.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Cheers Fridge.
> 
> Is that link OK to include in complaints etc?



Sure, if you like. I should maybe remove some of my crappy cat videos


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

rover07 said:


> Global economy, competition, blah, blah, blah
> 
> Thats all very nice and academic. Its power that counts. Striking is about exercising power.



So might makes right does it?

The unions made Britain ungovernable in the 70s, they bankrupted many British industies (Leyland being one).

Morons like you will drag everyone down.


----------



## grogwilton (Feb 3, 2009)

pk said:


> When I worked for the BBC I'd have been sacked for that shit.
> 
> Definitely complaints time.
> 
> ...



Complaint registered. Oh and ignore fire, don't feed the troll.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Sure, if you like. I should maybe remove some of my crappy cat videos


Ta!


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

BBC’s political advisor - Ric Bailey: ric.bailey@bbc.co.uk


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Morons like you will drag everyone down.



Morons like you need a good slapping, bet you wouldn't come out with that shite to a striker.

Down where by the way?  You do realise we are already there.....

BTW Leyland bankrupted itself by building out of date rotboxes, nowt to do with the workers.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> So might makes right does it?
> 
> The unions made Britain ungovernable in the 70s, they bankrupted many British industies (Leyland being one).
> 
> Morons like you will drag everyone down.



Yes might does make right. Cos whoever wins makes the rules.


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

rover07 said:


> Yes might does make right. Cos whoever wins makes the rules.



You have the intelligence of a biscuit. What sort of worker are you? Manual labour of some sort? Clearly you're quite dangerous with that razor sharp intellect.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

Do not disrupt this thread please.


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> Morons like you need a good slapping, bet you wouldn't come out with that shite to a striker.
> 
> Down where by the way?  You do realise we are already there.....



We're down there because morons like you sit on your arse and think that simply being British means that you'll have jobs and opportunities instead of going out and being the best you can be.

This is the part when I should say get on your dam bike.


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> You have the intelligence of a biscuit. What sort of worker are you? Manual labour of some sort? Clearly you're quite dangerous with that razor sharp intellect.



Fuck off back to Zimbabwe.... oh wait... you can't, LOL!!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

Please don't reply to him, he appears to just be here for a ruck and I wouldn't want to give him any excuses.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 3, 2009)

pk said:


> BBC’s political advisor - Ric Bailey: ric.bailey@bbc.co.uk



I've kept it short and sweet:



> Dear Mr Bailey,
> 
> I would be grateful if you could watch the following clip:
> 
> ...


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Please don't reply to him, he appears to just be here for a ruck and I wouldn't want to give him any excuses.



Fair play.


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> We're down there because morons like you sit on your arse and think that simply being British means that you'll have jobs and opportunities instead of going out and being the best you can be.
> 
> This is the part when I should say get on your dam bike.



I have been on my bike most of my adult life you tit, I have worked all over the wold for NAECI agreed rates and am one of the best at what I do, come to UK to work and the NAECI isn't reconised in it's country of origin and labour is undercut.

What don't you understand?


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

pk said:


> Fuck off back to Zimbabwe.... oh wait... you can't, LOL!!



Is the meant to be funny?

Thousands of people are starving and dying. Deaths that could be prevented and you think its funny?

You dam sick FUCK!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

Final warning.


----------



## Fire (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> I have been on my bike most of my adult life you tit, I have worked all over the wold for NAECI agreed rates and am one of the best at what I do, come to UK to work and the NAECI isn't reconised in it's country of origin and labour is undercut.
> 
> What don't you understand?



Stop moaning - if you're going to be more expensive than other people you'd better be worth it. It looks like the company in question has taken the best and most cost effective solution. Tough shit - better luck next time.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 3, 2009)

k then, 24h

moving swiftly on


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Stop moaning - if you're going to be more expensive than other people you'd better be worth it. It looks like the company in question has taken the best and most cost effective solution. Tough shit - better luck next time.



by importing captive workers, reeks of slavery.

glad to see what YOU advocate, back to free labour, fancy yerself some free slaves to chain up and whip eh?


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

Fire said:


> Is the meant to be funny?
> 
> Thousands of people are starving and dying. Deaths that could be prevented and you think its funny?
> 
> You dam sick FUCK!



I suppose one might be able to speculate that thousands of people in the UK could also be starving and dying if cunts like Total and that twice-sacked tosspot Mandleson got their own way... but Fire's now banned, so...


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> by importing captive workers, reeks of slavery.
> 
> glad to see what YOU advocate, back to free labour, fancy yerself some free slaves to chain up and whip eh?



I wonder if he's a white Zimbabwean, with a chip on his shoulder and a keen intent to return to the slavery days?

Hmmm....


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

cheers for the links PK and Fridge... my email...



> To whom it may concern,
> 
> I'd like to register a serious complaint about the editing of an interview with one of the strikers at the lindsey oil refinery on the BBC news at 10 last night, where the interview was edited deliberately to make the interviewee appear racist by removing a qualifying section of his interview. the full version of the interview was later broadcast on newsnight, and gives and entirely different meaning to what the interviewee was saying.
> 
> ...


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

UK is not part of a single European market until we join the EURO! It's like having one foot in and one foot out. 

How do Italians, Germans, French, workers (etc) feel about Companies in their countries contracting non-residential labour subject to these "undercut and dumbed-down terms and conditions"  ? 
Has anyone got any info.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> How do Italians, Germans, French, workers (etc) feel about Companies in their countries contracting non-residential labour subject to these "undercut and dumbed-down terms and conditions"  ?
> Has anyone got any info.


Someone posted this link earlier.



> In 2004, the Latvian-based construction company, Laval un Partneri, started work on a school refurbishment and rebuilding project in Vaxholm—the main town on an archipelago of islands in the Baltic Sea outside Stockholm. The contract, offered to the lowest bidder, was the latest in a series for the company’s Swedish subsidiary seeking to exploit the stark wage discrepancy between Sweden, with an average wage of around €1,900 per month, and its Baltic neighbours.
> 
> Laval’s subsidiary, L&P Baltic AB, paid its workers relatively high wages for Latvia, around €9 per hour, in addition to offering food and accommodation. But this is substantially below the rate agreed for construction workers with the main construction union in Sweden, Byggnad.
> 
> ...


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> The only 'evidence' I have of anything is the inclusion of the word local in one line of a set of demands. But I'd gladly hear some explanation of why it is there


As I said in the part of my post that you cut out:


> It looks more to me like an attempt to deracialise the dispute over jobs by making it about creating a means for the union to help unemployed people who live nearby into work. Notice that the demand doesn't actually refer to 'local people', by the way.


The strikers haven't been shy about saying what they mean up to now, why would they get all coy when agreeing on their demands?  Face it, you made the wrong call and now you're too embarrassed to back down from it.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Someone posted this link earlier.



It will be interesting to see what the result of this is in the courts - keep us updated


----------



## lewislewis (Feb 3, 2009)

I've added my complaint. Appalling editorial standards. I didn't include the video link in my quote because I wasn't sure about the legality. I'm sure they are aware of it though.


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> cheers for the links PK and Fridge... my email...



Fair play

You should have pointed out that the edited comments were a 2 second segment.This could've covered the option of the Beeb claiming it was edited to quickly sum up the strikers' feelings.

Any other complaints been lodged?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> It will be interesting to see what the result of this is in the courts - keep us updated



That was a few years back DC. The European Court of Justice ruled in favour of the bosses in this and another similiar case which, amongst other things



> effectively outlawed industrial action where unions are trying to win equal pay for migrant workers and banned public bodies from requiring foreign contractors to pay such workers local rates.



This fight is in large part aboput these cases and their results.

See

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/ecj-decision-laval.htm


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Face it, you made the wrong call and now you're too embarrassed to back down from it.


It's a strike against foreign labour being brought in and for British jobs for British workers, oh, sorry I mean local jobs for local people.

It's not a strike to defend and extend jobs for all regardless and there's no point in trying to pretend it is.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> what is your point?  You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...


That's aboslutely fucking outrageous, complaint sent.



> Where's that link to BBC complaints gone again?


BBC complaints homepage, you can make a complaint online or you could phone on 03700 100 222.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> It's a strike against foreign labour being brought in and for British jobs for British workers, oh, sorry I mean local jobs for local people.
> 
> It's not a strike to defend and extend jobs for all regardless and there's no point in trying to pretend it is.



thats right its what the daily mail says


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> Fair play
> 
> You should have pointed out that the edited comments were a 2 second segment.This could've covered the option of the Beeb claiming it was edited to quickly sum up the strikers' feelings.
> 
> Any other complaints been lodged?


it was a quote used out of context to back up the reporters assertion about the 'xenophobic' undertones of the protests... something the full quote doesn't back up at all... the timings on the 2 quotes are 4 seconds and 7 seconds, so there's no excuse at all for that editing.


no response to my email, so this is going out on various campaigning email lists for mass circulation... I'd suggest anyone else does the same.

be good if someone could post up a list of press contacts as well if anyone has one handy.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> It's a strike against foreign labour being brought in and for British jobs for British workers, oh, sorry I mean local jobs for local people.
> 
> It's not a strike to defend and extend jobs for all regardless and there's no point in trying to pretend it is.


British jobs for British workers, which is why they're demanding interpreters to help the those bastard foreigners they want to get rid of get involved in the union, yes?

There's some nationalism about, but by talking it up and insisting that it's the _only_ tendancy within the strike, you are spreading a bosses' slur against striking workers.  Take a long hard look at yourself and think about what you're actually arguing here.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> thats right its what the daily mail says


how am I to understand the 'nominating' of 'locally skilled' people for employment in the demands exactly as anything other than another way of saying BJ4BW?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> how am I to understand the 'nominating' of 'locally skilled' people for employment in the demands exactly as anything other than another way of saying BJ4BW?


Maybe becuase it was written by two Socialist Party members and comes alongside demands for *unionisation of immigrant workers and interpreters to help them participate in the union*, you fucking idiot.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> how am I to understand the 'nominating' of 'locally skilled' people for employment in the demands exactly as anything other than another way of saying BJ4BW?



In Bloom explained it all perfectly reasonably and tangably directly to you

You have already made your choice - line up with the bosses and kept friends if you must. You can play with words all you like - its safe for you


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> it was a quote used out of context to back up the reporters assertion about the 'xenophobic' undertones of the protests... something the full quote doesn't back up at all... the timings on the 2 quotes are 4 seconds and 7 seconds, so there's no excuse at all for that editing.
> 
> 
> no response to my email, so this is going out on various campaigning email lists for mass circulation... I'd suggest anyone else does the same.
> ...



I've my own opinions about the Lindsey situation.......But I have lodged my complaint

The beeb site states it could take upto 10 days to respond


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There's some nationalism about, but by talking it up and insisting that it's the _only_ tendancy within the strike, you are spreading a bosses' slur against striking workers.  Take a long hard look at yourself and think about what you're actually arguing here.


I'm not talking anything up. The only demand that has anything to do with who should be employed or not in future calls for them to be 'locally skilled'. Can you explain to me how that doesn't exclude some workers from employment on the grounds of where they come from?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> I'm not talking anything up. The only demand that has anything to do with who should be employed or not in future calls for them to be 'locally skilled'. Can you explain to me how that doesn't exclude some workers from employment on the grounds of where they come from?



cirle jerk


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

> UK is not part of a single European market until we join the EURO! It's like having one foot in and one foot out.



Pish and tish. For the intent and purpose of employing someone in the EU it's one nation. Yes, there are discrepancies between states over issues like voting rights, access to healthcare, but as a worker or boss, the UK has been part of the single market since it's creation in 1992.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> I'm not talking anything up. The only demand that has anything to do with who should be employed or not in future calls for them to be 'locally skilled'. Can you explain to me how that doesn't exclude some workers from employment on the grounds of where they come from?


The demand is for a union controlled register people in the area who have the skills to work there, who can then be nominated for jobs that come up.  That doesn't exclude migrants who live in the area or people who come from elsewhere but live nearby.  If anything, it contributes towards deracialising the strike and pushing back nationalist tendancies.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> cirle jerk


That's it. Hide behind your insults instead of answering basic questions. So you're for a strike for 'local jobs for local people' are you?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

Those on strike today are going to be up-shit-creek tomorrow unless they use their unions to press for guaranteed skill-retraining to meet future-energy build & maintenance requirements.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> The demand is for a union controlled register people in the area who have the skills to work there, who can then be nominated for jobs that come up.  That doesn't exclude migrants who live in the area or people who come from elsewhere but live nearby.  If anything, it contributes towards deracialising the strike and pushing back nationalist tendancies.


Why mention 'local' then? That's what I don't get. There is no need to use the word unless the local leadership is pandering to parochial sentiment. And really, the so-called socialists on the committee should have been pushing for something that called for defence and extension of jobs for *all* to make sure that the BJ4BW message that has emanated from this strike was stopped its tracks.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Why mention 'local' then? That's what I don't get. There is no need to use the word unless the local leadership is pandering to parochial sentiment. And really, the so-called socialists on the committee should have been pushing for something that called for defence and extension of jobs for *all* to make sure that the BJ4BW message that has emanated from this strike was stopped its tracks.


Why obsess over one word?  The LOR workers chased off BNP members, demanded that the immigrant workers be given the opportunity to join the union alongside them and largely dropped BJ4BW as a slogan and you still won't support them because you've now deigned to label them "parochial".


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Those on strike today are going to be up-shit-creek tomorrow unless they use their unions to press for guaranteed skill-retraining to meet future-energy build & maintenance requirements.



How does a time served welder, fully coded to Lloyds register need retraining?
Or a skilled Steel erector, Fitter or plater?

I'm dying to know.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> That's it. Hide behind your insults instead of answering basic questions. So you're for a strike for 'local jobs for local people' are you?



I answered questions - you ignored the answers and repeated the same old distortion. I assume you do not live in a vacuam - that you can see and read -  so I can only conclude you are not interested in answers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why obsess over one word?  The LOR workers chased off BNP members, demanded that the immigrant workers be given the opportunity to join the union alongside them and largely dropped BJ4BW as a slogan and you still won't support them because you've now deigned to label them "parochial".



It's because it's all happening outside the aegis of a party or other organisation, that the whole thing was spontaneous and self-generating. Spion doesn't like non-party stuff like this to happen without a thorough analysis


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Spion doesn't like non-party stuff like this to happen without a thorough analysis



Spoin you did not answer my earlier question.

BA reckons you are not a member of any party.

KS assumes you are an SWPer and I assumed you were that or fellow-traveller - which is it?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> It's because it's all happening outside the aegis of a party or other organisation, that the whole thing was spontaneous and self-generating.


That's right. There was no human agency, no decisions taken, no union members putting their views forward, no 'Socialist' Party members involved, it just happened


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Great to see people on here complain to the BBC about the editing, etc of the strikers interview, it would also be great if posters could complain to the media when issues about welfare reform, etc, are chock full of misinformation, distortion bias, etc, the media is very very guilty of this.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> 'Socialist' Party members



those racists


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> How does a time served welder, fully coded to Lloyds register need retraining?
> Or a skilled Steel erector, Fitter or plater?
> 
> I'm dying to know.



*Example (West Midlands)*:
Annex: CHP Technology - Workforce Supply and Skills - read this cache of a .doc in html
(http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...8/CHP%20Workforce%20Supply%20and%20Skills.doc)

That's just for operation afaik, I'm searching for construction data atm...brb


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> those racists


Pick your straw man toys back up and get them back in your pram


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

KS said


> It's because it's all happening outside the aegis of a party or other organisation, that the whole thing was spontaneous and self-generating. Spion doesn't like non-party stuff like this to happen without a thorough analysis




Yes, there is a post on SU, which says 'whatever the original motivation of some workers, leadership, albeit on the ground', has been provided.

again, the obsession with leadership, this time its the workers and the poster seems dismayed it wasn't the vanguard!


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> *Example (West Midlands)*:
> Annex: CHP Technology - Workforce Supply and Skills - read this cache of a .doc in html
> (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...8/CHP%20Workforce%20Supply%20and%20Skills.doc)



That isn't construction work though is it.

once again it is industry striving to cut workforces, why employ a gasfitter, pipefitter and an electrician when one man can be all three.

Construction work is very static, new skills are instilled into the workforce as and when they are needed.

For example a welder has to weld a new alloy, training and testing of the new materials welding is done on site then a test piece is submitted to Lloyds and hey presto a new coding is up for grabs.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Spoin you did not answer my earlier question.
> 
> BA reckons you are not a member of any party.
> 
> KS assumes you are an SWPer and I assumed you were that or fellow-traveller - which is it?


Keep guessing, pal - you're as wrong as you can be. But really, you'd do better to spend time discussing hard facts about the issue at hand rather than getting yourself worked up like a petty bureaucrat trying to bully reds into silence


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Keep guessing, pal - you're as wrong as you can be. But really, you'd do better to spend time discussing hard facts about the issue at hand rather than getting yourself worked up like a petty bureaucrat trying to bully reds into silence



sorry where you telling me not to get 'worked up' ??

that was a simple question - i didn't realise it was so appalling for such a delicate soul 

"bully reds into silence" *laughs*


----------



## TwoTimer (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> The demand is for a union controlled register people in the area who have the skills to work there, who can then be nominated for jobs that come up.  That doesn't exclude migrants who live in the area or people who come from elsewhere but live nearby.  If anything, it contributes towards deracialising the strike and pushing back nationalist tendancies.



What does everyone think should happen if someone on the union controlled register is a member of a far right party such as the BNP?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Users and admin at libcom.org have put together an issue of our newsletter, Tea Break, about this dispute.

Tea Break: on Exploitation in Oil

Any thoughts?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> What does everyone think should happen if someone on the union controlled register is a member of a far right party such as the BNP?


Personally, I'd argue that they should be kicked off the register, as should anybody who scabs, but that's for the workers in the dispute to decide.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

My complaint:



> Dear Ms Boaden
> 
> I'm writing to complain about what I consider a serious and deliberate incidence of misleading editing on BBC News at Ten.  I watched the main news and took at face value an interview with a striker which was introduced with the words: "Beneath the anger ministers fear lies straightforward xenophobia."  The striker was then heard to say: "These Portuguese and Ities; we can't work alongside of them."
> 
> ...


----------



## JimW (Feb 3, 2009)

I filled in the online complaint form - asked if they could make a correction as prominent as the original smear.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Hugh-Kerr-It39s-about-time.4938756.jp
> 
> 
> Hugh Kerr: It's about time Labour really stood up for British workers
> ...





Excellent and accessible account of the issue by Hugh Kerr, here, and some revealing facts about the UK Govt blocking 'social europe directives'


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> #Friends,
> I am an immigrant and fully support strikers. The Companies are trying to play both immigrant and native workers against each other, i believe we all workers in the same boat, without unity of workers at least europewide, we are doomed to lose.
> 
> All media are telling that strikers against foreign workers, they say it is freedom of immigrant worker to work and live in this country. As if they are talking about some rich people living in Monaco for tax purposes or Bahama Islands. It is not an issue of freedom, it is issue of slavery. Who will live in barges afar from their families for peanut? Only Slaves! Who will work in restaurant 14 hours a day less than minumum wage? only slaves! Now Total and its contractor has tried to reduce local workforce from worker into a slave. If we are against slavery we should support strikers.
> ...



Elequent defence of the workers here, from an 'immigrant'


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Interesting stuff, TL, where did that come from?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Why obsess over one word?


Well, someone obsessed over it on the strike cttee, and along with some of those the producing the placards, have been very careful to substitute 'local' for 'British'


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Socialist Unity Blog


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> It's about time Labour really stood up for British workers


Great stuff. Let's all get the union jacks out


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Well, someone obsessed over it on the strike cttee, and along with some of those the producing the placards, have been very careful to substitute 'local' for 'British'


And has it not occurred to you that they might be doing this because they _don't_ want this to become a campaign against immigrant workers?  Of course not, because that wouldn't fit into your neat little narative of the strike where all the nasty British builders are just being racist.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> I've my own opinions about the Lindsey situation.......But I have lodged my complaint
> 
> The beeb site states it could take upto 10 days to respond


fair play like... best fucking not take 10 days to respond mind or there'll be trouble


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

250 out at Heerema in Hartlepool this afternoon. Not the power station - which had its own walkout on friday.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:
			
		

> Well, someone obsessed over it on the strike cttee, and along with some of those the producing the placards, have been very careful to substitute 'local' for 'British'


“This worker solidarity is against the ‘conscious blacking’ of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the UK. The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement.” - Keith Gibson, Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike Committee

That nasty racist bastard


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Great stuff. Let's all get the union jacks out



Why don't you pick your dummy back up, it may shut you up a bit from your non existent "racist" attacks.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> And has it not occurred to you that they might be doing this because they _don't_ want this to become a campaign against immigrant workers?


Local, British, it means the same. They might not want it to appear it's against immigrant workers but restricting employment to 'locals' is the same thing in practical effect.

Why are so many people so keen to gloss over the real demands about who can be employed and who not that this strike has? It's sad that so many people are so desperate to see some working class action they'll cheerlead what is clearly a pisspoor at best and reactionary at worst set of demands.

BJ4BW should have been clearly opposed by the left wingers involved, not gone along uncritically with a fluffy sounding substitute that has the same effect


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> Why don't you pick your dummy back up, it may shut you up a bit from your non existent "racist" attacks.


*mwah*


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Its incredible how quickly some of the Left and plenty of liberals have identified racism, xenophobia amongst the strikers, almost as if they expected it from the working class


then again, at least they are discussing it, indymedia has largely ignored it, what a joke it is since FTP became its guru!


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Local, British, it means the same. They might not want it to appear it's against immigrant workers but restricting employment to 'locals' is the same thing in practical effect.
> 
> Why are so many people so keen to gloss over the real demands about who can be employed and who not that this strike has? It's sad that so many people are so desperate to see some working class action they'll cheerlead what is clearly a pisspoor at best and reactionary at worst set of demands.
> 
> BJ4BW should have been clearly opposed by the left wingers involved, not gone along uncritically with a fluffy sounding substitute that has the same effect


And once again, how do you square this analysis (and it's pretty charitable to describe is as that) of yours with a mass meeting of the LOR workers agreeing to demands including a demand for immigrant workers to be brought into the union?  Is that "pisspoor at best"?

People's politics don't arrive in neat little packages from some central committee, they develop over time and in struggle.  There are both nationalist tendancies and pro-working class tendancies within this dispute, and as far as LOR is concerned, the latter appears to be winning.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Its incredible how quickly some of the Left and plenty of liberals have identified racism, xenophobia amongst the strikers, almost as if they expected it from the working class


good thing no such thoughts were reflected in the thread title or first post isn't it?  

Who was it came up with that then.....


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Its incredible how quickly some of the Left and plenty of liberals have identified racism, xenophobia amongst the strikers, almost as if they expected it from the working class



you made a thread about "foreigners" taking jobs at a time when 'british' workers were being laid off, didn't you?


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Spoin you did not answer my earlier question.
> 
> BA reckons you are not a member of any party.
> 
> KS assumes you are an SWPer and I assumed you were that or fellow-traveller - which is it?





Spion said:


> That's right. There was no human agency, no decisions taken, no union members putting their views forward, no 'Socialist' Party members involved, it just happened



My post was mere light hearted jocularity, based on the conversation we had some time ago about the necesity of party; my argument that the very concept of party is inherently based on a capitalist system of organisation and exclusion, yours being that before the revolution there needs to be a place where, and I'll quote as close as my memory serves me, 'There can be a space to discuss and analyse actions'...something along those lines.

Basically, your point was that Party is necessary, mine that Party is the where it all starts to go wrong.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

email list has been hit with the following message... hope nobody minds me borrowing their emails as examples for people to use... any other keyboard warriors with access to email lists fancy firing out a similar message, I'm thinking it's the leas we can do for those on the frontline



> I'm just on a wee little mission to get folk to complain to the BBC today if possible about them editing a quote on the 10 oclock news last night from a linsey striker to make it look like he was being xenophobic, when the full quote aired on Newsnight showed what he was saying in a totally different light.
> 
> This seems to be part of an establishment led campaign to smeer the strikers as racists / xenophobes, drive a wefge between them and left/liberal supporters, and force them into the hands of the BNP. At present the BNP are being chased off from the picket lines, so let's not let the BBC get away with this crap, and show those on the picket that they do have support from the left.
> 
> ...


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Maybe becuase it was written by two Socialist Party members and comes alongside demands for *unionisation of immigrant workers and interpreters to help them participate in the union*, you fucking idiot.



what about British workers abroad? will you call them 'immigrant' also? 

will British workers abroad be forced to join that country's Unions in order to be allowed to continue to work abroad? 

did UK Unions make contact with 'abroad' Unions yet?

is there a Europe-wide "Union" yet ?


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> what about British workers abroad? will you call them 'immigrant' also?
> 
> will British workers abroad be forced to join that country's Unions in order to be allowed to continue to work abroad?
> 
> ...



Nope, there isn't even a UK wide one, AMICUS or the GMB but they are both bent.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

> this seems to be part of an establishment led campaign to smeer the strikers as racists / xenophobes



The problem with this statement is you're accusing the same news organisation of a plot that also featured the whole quote from said worker in another of it's shows...


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 3, 2009)

Thanks free spirit - that's a pretty shitty edit with a very blatant agenda. Complaint made.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> what about British workers abroad? will you call them 'immigrant' also?
> 
> will British workers abroad be forced to join that country's Unions in order to be allowed to continue to work abroad?
> 
> ...



Ah, so I see no one has answered these in any greater depth than Belboid than when I raised them about 200 posts ago...


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> Nope, there isn't even a UK wide one, AMICUS or the GMB but they are both bent.



well that's totally useless then. 

this needs to be sorted out asap. 
(and ensure it includes Scandinavian countries)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

Incidentally, what's going on with the Building Workers Group? Do they still exist?


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> what about British workers abroad? will you call them 'immigrant' also?


thats why I prefer the word 'migrant' tho its all much of a muchness



> will British workers abroad be forced to join that country's Unions in order to be allowed to continue to work abroad?


they should be, imo, yes



> did UK Unions make contact with 'abroad' Unions yet?
> 
> is there a Europe-wide "Union" yet ?



both those things are ongoing projects.  christ, it took amicus & T&G nigh on four years to agree a merger, how much longer do you think it is likely to with europe wide unions?  there are cross-european union agreements tho


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Good work free spirit.  I'll whack a version of that round my address book.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The problem with this statement is you're accusing the same news organisation of a plot that also featured the whole quote from said worker in another of it's shows...



No editing like that should take place EVER. It's a disgrace.

Also more people are likely to watch the news than newsnight.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Thanks free spirit - that's a pretty shitty edit with a very blatant agenda. Complaint made.



The agenda being:

1. The plebs all watch the main 10pm bulletin, and get the 'W/c are racist' label

2. The intelligent types watch newsnight and get to see the whole quote because...?


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Ah, so I see no one has answered these in any greater depth than Belboid than when I raised them about 200 posts ago...



more like 800...how time flies...


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

_angel_ said:


> No editing like that should take place EVER. It's a disgrace.
> 
> Also more people are likely to watch the news than newsnight.



No editing like what?


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> more like 800...how time flies...



Fuck me, so it is!!


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The agenda being:
> 
> 1. The plebs all watch the main 10pm bulletin, and get the 'W/c are racist' label
> 
> 2. The intelligent types watch newsnight and get to see the whole quote because...?



and cos of the journo's involved.  One ex-tory boy, one ex (?) - trot.

can you guess which was which?


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 3, 2009)

Editing in the middle of a sentence to make it look like it said something other than what the speaker intended?


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The agenda being:
> 
> 1. The plebs all watch the main 10pm bulletin, and get the 'W/c are racist' label
> 
> 2. The intelligent types watch newsnight and get to see the whole quote because...?



I'm not accusing the whole BBC of being part of a conspiracy. Some editor or someone on News at Ten decided to put in a deliberately misleading quote that was a slur against one of the strikers. That's what I complained about. Good on the Newsnight crew who put the whole quote in, but a lot of people won't have watched both.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> “This worker solidarity is against the ‘conscious blacking’ of British construction workers by company bosses who refuse to recruit skilled British labour in the UK. The workers of LOR, Conoco and Easington did not take strike action against immigrant workers. Our action is rightly aimed against company bosses who attempt to play off one nationality of worker against the other and undermine the NAECI agreement.” - Keith Gibson, Lindsey Oil Refinery Strike Committee


And the correct response is to 'consciously black' workers who are not local?

Is that Libertarian Communism? Or is it just going along with a sentiment that says 'fuck you, pal, you're not local'?


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> Editing in the middle of a sentence to make it look like it said something other than what the speaker intended?



OK, how do we know it wasn't cropped to fit within the timeslot the story had to fit in?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but we've got people arguing that the same organisation is part of an establishment plot, and lots of people making wild claims.

It is a shitty piece of editing for a major bulletin, but the automatic assumption of bias, not to mention the absurd accusation of an 'establishment plot' when the two articles came from the same news organisation is...well, a bit silly really.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I'm not accusing the whole BBC of being part of a conspiracy. Some editor or someone on News at Ten decided to put in a deliberately misleading quote that was a slur against one of the strikers. That's what I complained about. Good on the Newsnight crew who put the whole quote in, but a lot of people won't have watched both.


This.  Although it's a bit more than that: reporting has consistently said the strikes are "against Italian workers", although within the reports strikers are often quoted as saying that isn't their agenda, they just object to being laid off by one company only for a sub-sub contractor not to even consider them for the jobs.  But it's that headline that counts - "the strikes against Italian workers".


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> And once again, how do you square this analysis (and it's pretty charitable to describe is as that) of yours with a mass meeting of the LOR workers agreeing to demands including a demand for immigrant workers to be brought into the union?  Is that "pisspoor at best"?
> 
> People's politics don't arrive in neat little packages from some central committee, they develop over time and in struggle.  There are both nationalist tendancies and pro-working class tendancies within this dispute, and as far as LOR is concerned, the latter appears to be winning.


You're ignoring the only demand that refers to future employment, that calls for it to go to locals nominated by the union.

No, w/c people's ideas don't arise fully formed with diamond sharp class consciousness. They are learned in struggle and in discussion during that struggle, and you're abdicating responsibility from criticising the reactionary elements of this strike's demands


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> The problem with this statement is you're accusing the same news organisation of a plot that also featured the whole quote from said worker in another of it's shows...


firstly, that only went to the email list as my opinion, not for inclusion in complaints etc. just as background as I see it.

secondly, newsnight tends to have higher editorial standards, but it's viewing figures are a hell of a lot lower than the main evening news.

IMO it is part of an establishment campaign as stated, as indicated by the following media quotes, and the fact the bbc could only find this misleadingly edited quote to back up their assertion says it all IMO.

btw I firmly believe most of 'the establishment' are a bunch of incompetent pricks, so the fact that one part of the bbc isn't towing the same line as another part does nothing to undermine the overall notion that those in power are trying to smear the strike as being xenophobic by whatever means they have at their disposal. They've fucked up though here, so let's not let them off the hook easily.



> <snip>Lord Mandelson calls protests 'xenophobic'


[telegraph]



> Wildcat strikes over foreign labour show no sign of ending today, despite warnings from the Government about the issue stoking the "politics of xenophobia".





> He added: "We should keep our sights set firmly not on the politics of xenophobia but on the economics of this recession."


[mandy himself]


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

...and as pointed out by b, it can be viewed as ra eflection of how class struggle operates _within_ the BBC as well. The orginal edited fuckwit report coming from a tory hostile to the strike who would have gotten away with it if not for someone sympathetic to the strike on another program For those who still have illusions about impartiality on the part of the BBC this should be another nail in the coffin (and as i pointed out on another thread about a BBC fuck up, they've  also took back their apology over showing the order of the days events at Orgreave in reverse).


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> OK, how do we know it wasn't cropped to fit within the timeslot the story had to fit in?
> 
> I'm playing devil's advocate here, but we've got people arguing that the same organisation is part of an establishment plot, and lots of people making wild claims.
> 
> It is a shitty piece of editing for a major bulletin, but the automatic assumption of bias, not to mention the absurd accusation of an 'establishment plot' when the two articles came from the same news organisation is...well, a bit silly really.



I don't think it was an 'establishment plot', more likely a combination of time contraint (although only 3 seconds were saved) and crappy journalism looking for a xenophobic angle. Although Auntie Beeb has form in terms of dodgy coverage of strike action it must be said.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> thats why I prefer the word 'migrant' tho its all much of a muchness


it's not a much of a muchness imo. 
one is a loaded term (immigrant) implying seeking permanent stay/residence, the other (migrant) implying temporary residence/stay with a permanent residence elsewhere.


> they should be, imo, yes


but aren't there laws about being forced to join a union in order to secure employment? isn't that a closed shop? 


> both those things are ongoing projects.  christ, it took amicus & T&G nigh on four years to agree a merger, how much longer do you think it is likely to with europe wide unions?  there are cross-european union agreements tho


then why don't these union members initiate a new union of unions - europe-wide- preferably talking to other unions (esp. portuguese and italian) by the end of the week?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> OK, how do we know it wasn't cropped to fit within the timeslot the story had to fit in?
> 
> I'm playing devil's advocate here, but we've got people arguing that the same organisation is part of an establishment plot, and lots of people making wild claims.
> 
> It is a shitty piece of editing for a major bulletin, but the automatic assumption of bias, not to mention the absurd accusation of an 'establishment plot' when the two articles came from the same news organisation is...well, a bit silly really.


7 seconds vs 4 seconds... sorry, but that excuse doesn't work IMO, particularly as they used the clip specifically to back up the reporters statement about ministers fearing xenophobia lies beneath the anger. It's obvious the clip doesn't back up that assertion at all when played in full, so they edited it to fit the storyline of their piece... ie deliberate misrepresentation of the views of the person being interviewed.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Good work free spirit.  I'll whack a version of that round my address book.


nice one... any more for any more?

I'm writing a press release to send round the papers based on their being an internet campaign brewing to force the BBC into a retraction and apology on this, so it'd be kinda good if there actually was a bit of an internet campaign going on that amounted to more than half a dozen email complaints

eta off to paint a wall first, which should give the campaign chance to brew a bit...


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 3, 2009)

BTW, just sent my complaint to the whole list of folks suggested...like I said, devil's advocate...


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> then why don't these union members initiate a new union of unions - europe-wide- preferably talking to other unions (esp. portuguese and italian) by the end of the week?



Unite takes more than  a week to decide whether or not to fart!

As I said, there are cross-european agreements, but thy are very hard to enforce.

And do you really want a union with an HQ in Turin?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> nice one... any more for any more?


I did modify the supporting text somewhat.  I respectfully suggest kyser does likewise.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> BTW, just sent my complaint to the whole list of folks suggested...like I said, devil's advocate...


nice one...


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

sent also.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> I did modify the supporting text somewhat.  I respectfully suggest kyser does likewise.


I'd have been very surprised if you hadn't...


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> nice one...



The PCC says that complaints of inaccuracy in news broadcasts must me sent directly to the BBC

Any other independent bodies to send the complaints to?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> You're ignoring the only demand that refers to future employment, that calls for it to go to locals nominated by the union.


Except that it doesn't say "locals" it says "skilled people, locally", i.e., the work at the refinery should be available to the people who live right by it.  Is that really such a reactionary demand?



> No, w/c people's ideas don't arise fully formed with diamond sharp class consciousness. They are learned in struggle and in discussion during that struggle, and you're abdicating responsibility from criticising the reactionary elements of this strike's demands


Alright, first of all, I don't have a "responsibility" to do or say anything with regards to these strikes.  Secondly, if would you care to read the newsletter I linked to earlier, which I and others will be distributing at demonstrations and pickets and tell me whether you think it shies away from criticising reactionary elements in this strike?


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> The PCC says that complaints of inaccuracy in news broadcasts must me sent directly to the BBC



and they would only deal with a complaint from the striker himself, no second or third parties.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> Unite takes more than  a week to decide whether or not to fart!


Bureacratic triplicate permission-to-fart-form signed, I presume?


> As I said, there are cross-european agreements, but thy are very hard to enforce.


Would be better/easier to enforce if there were an umbrella representation via union of unions! 


> And do you really want a union with an HQ in Turin?


There needn't be that kind of physical building - can be done other ways..peripetetic HQ, one union, one rep ?


ANYWAY! 
Why aren't the union protestors standing outside the Italian/Portuguese workers' hotel/digs with placards saying 'Brothers, join us!'

Why are there reports of these migrant workers having to endure hatred from locality ?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> The PCC says that complaints of inaccuracy in news broadcasts must me sent directly to the BBC
> 
> Any other independent bodies to send the complaints to?


PK might know more on this, but I can't see there'd be any harm in effectively giving the PCC a heads up about the situation... particularly as other media might well contact them for a comment or something if there is any media interest in it.

btw, I don't really do the blogosphere, not sure if anyone knows any likely blogs to get onto this story if they aren't already?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Why aren't the union protestors standing outside the Italian/Portuguese workers' hotel/digs with placards saying 'Brothers, join us!'


They'd be in 4 fathoms of water?

Maybe they are doing just that.  Do you know they aren't?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Why aren't the union protestors standing outside the Italian/Portuguese workers' hotel/digs with placards saying 'Brothers, join us!'
> 
> Why are there reports of these migrant workers having to endure hatred from locality ?


erm, possibly because like any community in the country there are some racist / xenophobic arseholes out there who're taking their frustrations out on the posted workers... doesn't mean that the majority of the strikers agree with them, or that this is what the strike's about though does it?


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Why aren't the union protestors standing outside the Italian/Portuguese workers' hotel/digs with placards saying 'Brothers, join us!'



Because they would drown and the BOAT they are staying on is secured.



> Why are there reports of these migrant workers having to endure hatred from locality ?




proof....

Why IS the left so adamant to label this as racist, maybe it is because they can't bear to support the strikers as it is the left that pushed us into the No Borders anology and they can't bear to see their dream as a heap of profiteering shite.


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> PK might know more on this, but I can't see there'd be any harm in effectively giving the PCC a heads up about the situation... particularly as other media might well contact them for a comment or something if there is any media interest in it.
> 
> btw, I don't really do the blogosphere, not sure if anyone knows any likely blogs to get onto this story if they aren't already?



As I've said i've my own opinions on the Lindsey situation(which most disagree with) but undermining the beliefs of those who are losing money to strike is downright disgusting

I think as much as possible should be done to make sure this doesn't go unnoticed


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Except that it doesn't say "locals" it says "skilled people, locally", i.e., the work at the refinery should be available to the people who live right by it.  Is that really such a reactionary demand?


Well, it doesn't say a percentage of locals, it just says locally skilled labour. IE, not those who - by whatever arbitrary limitation is decided upon - are from further than X miles away. So, by definition it means British-based only at best, and I'm sure no-one in the real world is under any illusions about that given the prominence of the BJ4BW slogans.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Why aren't the union protestors standing outside the Italian/Portuguese workers' hotel/digs with placards saying 'Brothers, join us!'


they have tried. Bosses wont let them near (hence the comments from Mr 'Eyetie' on the news last night) Also Portuguese workers have joined in some of the other walkouts



> Why are there reports of these migrant workers having to endure hatred from locality ?



the italian bloke i saw on the news yesterday was saying how little explicit racism like that he'd witnessed. No doubt it exists, but the media is overblowing it massively.  I imagine if one single italian had been assaulted, we'd all know about it by now, but it doesn't seem to have happened.  So its hardly a seething hotbed of bigotry, is it?


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> Why IS the left so adamant to label this as racist,


in case you hasn't noticed, most people arguing against such a label ARE of 'the left'


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 3, 2009)

What seems to have been missed is the lopsided way that 'no borders' has been implemented in the UK; the country has been kept quite deliberately separate economically speaking from the rest of Europe whilst labour has been allowed to be sold i nblocks across borders, taking advantage of the fact that prices etc can be controlled independently of each other. And all the while the UK has been opposing any regulation that would insure common standards for labour across the EU.

Dominic Lawson writing in the independent today talks as if socialist internationalism and capitalist free movement of labour were one and the same thing, and the workers opposition to the latter somehow refutes the former, whereas in fact they could hardly be more different.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> They'd be in 4 fathoms of water?





snadge said:


> Because they would drown and the BOAT they are staying on is secured.


 The boat is docked and the Italian workers are being bussed in and out. 

Have the Socialist Party members on the strike cttee suggested that a delegation makes a public gesture to these workers to join them? I'd like to know that


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Well, it doesn't say a percentage of locals, it just says locally skilled labour. IE, not those who - by whatever arbitrary limitation is decided upon - are from further than X miles away. So, by definition it means British-based only at best, and I'm sure no-one in the real world is under any illusions about that given the prominence of the BJ4BW slogans.


Except that this would just be a register of people who'd be nominated as candidates for the jobs, not the entirety of the workforce.

"British-based" is an incredibly slimey way to make insinuations of xenophobia, by the way.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> So its hardly a seething hotbed of bigotry, is it?


This is the straw man of the thread. No one is saying that.

But at the same time we've no evidence that the strikers have attempted - or that members of the strike cttee have even argued for - the basic act of reaching out to these workers to say, "Brothers, join us for jobs for all".

TBH, linking up with the Italians is vital in this


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Have the Socialist Party members on the strike cttee suggested that a delegation makes a public gesture to these workers to join them? I'd like to know that





belboid said:


> they have tried. Bosses wont let them near (hence the comments from Mr 'Eyetie' on the news last night) Also Portuguese workers have joined in some of the other walkouts


I'm nowhere near Lindsay.  I am near Longannet and Grangemouth, but those are sympathy strikes.  So I have to rely on what I'm told, and as we have seen the news media aren't really doing a great job on that score.  However, I'd be very surprised if the strikers haven't tried to contact the migrant workers.  And belboid says they have tried.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> "British-based" is an incredibly slimey way to make insinuations of xenophobia, by the way.


I mean exactly what I say. Only a mind looking for 'slime' could see it that way


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> This is the straw man of the thread. No one is saying that.
> 
> But at the same time we've no evidence that the strikers have attempted - or that members of the strike cttee have even argued for - the basic act of reaching out to these workers to say, "Brothers, join us for jobs for all".
> 
> TBH, linking up with the Italians is vital in this



I agree making contact is very important, and afaik, attempts are being made. 

But it is NOT a straw man to point out that the 'xenophiobia' seems really very limited.  the media are constantly telling us how the strike is 'anti-italian' and threats are being made, but there appears to be not one iota of evidence for this. There have been NO reported incidences of racism directed at any italians or other foreigners. if the strike really were so xenophobic, you would expect _someone_ would go and do something fucking stupidly ignorant, but they haven't.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> But it is NOT a straw man to point out that the 'xenophiobia' seems really very limited.  the media are constantly telling us how the strike is 'anti-italian' and threats are being made, but there appears to be not one iota of evidence for this. There have been NO reported incidences of racism directed at any italians or other foreigners. if the strike really were so xenophobic, you would expect _someone_ would go and do something fucking stupidly ignorant, but they haven't.


I meant straw man as far as this thread on this board is concerned. Not one of the posters AFAIK here has accused the strikers of racism or xenophobia (nationalism, yes), but that straw man has been thrown around a lot towards me and others.

I thought the Newsnight report last night had the owner of the accommodation barge reporting threats to the Italians there?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

What the strikers want. Preferential treatment for British workers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> they have tried. Bosses wont let them near (hence the comments from Mr 'Eyetie' on the news last night) Also Portuguese workers have joined in some of the other walkouts


it's a priority mission of goodwill. are they at Immingham? there are other ways of getting to Immingham dock w/o breaking any laws. 


> the italian bloke i saw on the news yesterday was saying how little explicit racism like that he'd witnessed. No doubt it exists, but the media is overblowing it massively.


Still, even a little intimidation must be bad for all. 


> So its hardly a seething hotbed of bigotry, is it?


That wasn't really my point to highlight 'a seething hotbed of bigotry', just to show how unpleasant things have become for these migrant workers.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What the strikers want. Preferential treatment for British workers
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



Two of those interviewed were unemployed i.e. not striking workers. This wasn't immediately made clear by the reporter.

2nd guy interviewed, was asked if he was one of the contractors, (the man who had formerly said 'We'll stay out as long as it takes') and turned out to be unemployed and supportive protestor, looking for work, and not an employed-striker - his statement was misleading.  

The other non-employed bloke believes he was not considered for re-hire at this place due to his being a former shop steward. He spoke on behalf of the strikers - does he still work for the Union?

Who was the guy in sunglasses being interviewed? "Kenny" - was he a striking worker or another supportive out-of-work protestor seeking employment?

Again, consultation with Italian/Portuguese  Unions seems of paramount importance.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> who was the guy in sunglasses being interviwed? was he a striking worker or another supportive protestor ?


I assumed he was on the strike cttee, but it doesn't actually say anywhere. Someone here may know who he is


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

The CGIL website doesn't seem to mention it.

They do however have a page on immigration

http://www.cgil.it/immigrazione/index.shtml

I_presume_ to unionise migrant workkers


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

Some digging and I found this...My Italian isn't good enough to do an accurate enough translation. 





> Roma, 2 febbraio – “Nel Lincolnshire si sta consumando una delle più brutte pagine della storia del movimento sindacale in tempi di globalizzazione: lavoratori inglesi contro lavoratori italiani”. Sono i responsabili dell’ Ufficio Europa Fiom Cgil, Sabina Petrucci, e del Segretariato Europa Cgil, Nicola Nicolosi, a commentare così gli scioperi dei lavoratori inglesi contro il contratto a termine dato all’azienda siciliana Irem per la costruzione di un impianto in una raffineria nel nord dell’Inghilterra.
> 
> “La crisi economica di questi tempi - sostengono i due sindacalisti -, causata da un capitalismo votato alla speculazione finanziaria, senza regole, e centrata sulla ricchezza dei debiti, sta producendo uno dei malesseri sociali più gravi: poveri contro poveri, lavoratori contro lavoratori”. Intano, mentre la crisi economica ha come effetto la perdita di migliaia di posti di lavoro, per Nicolosi e Petrucci “le soluzioni prospettate a Davos sono esattamente identiche a quelle che la crisi l’hanno provocata. Anche in Europa, la disoccupazione aumenta e la paura diventa fenomeno sociale. Casi di intolleranza razziale si consumano anche in Italia; fatti odiosi, inaccettabili, da condannare e combattere con tutte le energie”.
> 
> ...



I hope this means the CGIL are on the case....


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

No, i think that previous link was about taxation of immigrants, not union membership. 

As I said - UK Unions must contact Italian Unions asap. Could end being a bunch of nationalist chauvinist protectionism if not careful and that won't benefit anyone.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

The Cobas aren-t mentioing it either.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

chilango said:


> Some digging and I found this...My Italian isn't good enough to do an accurate enough translation.
> 
> I hope this means the CGIL are on the case....


My fear is the strikers are going to end up alienating the Italian Unions.



			
				my bad translation said:
			
		

> In Lincolnshire, one of the ugliest pages in the history of the trade-union movement in these times of globalisation is occurring: "English workers against Italian wokers".
> <snip - quick switch to auto-translator>
> “The crisis economic of these times - the two sindacalisti [i.e. Nicolosi and Petrucci] support -, caused from a Capitalism voted to the speculation financial institution, without rules, and centered on the wealth of the debits, *is producing one of more serious the social malaises: poor against poor, working against workers”. Intano, while the economic crisis has like effect the loss of thousands of workplaces, for Nicolosi and Petrucci “the solutions shown to Davos are exactly identical to those which they have provoked it to the crisis. Also in Europe, unemployment increases and the fear becomes social phenomenon. Cases of racial intolerance are consumed also in Italy; hateful, unacceptable facts, to condemn and to fight with all the energies”.*


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

Yeah. My quick reading was not positive. The CGIL seem to saying the strikes are reactionary etc. But I may be missing a nuance or two.


...so that wouldn't leave much room for a co-operation at Union level.

But then, these strikes seem to operating somewhat beyond the union anyway, so a rank and file initiative could still happen.

I'll keep looking around to see how its going down out here.


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

La Republica was calling the strike "anti-Italian" yesterday.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

where to said:


> La Republica was calling the strike "anti-Italian" yesterday.


Of course it was; the British media keep on saying it is.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

As it is said above in badly translated Italian - it's a social phenenemon caused by increasing unemployment across Europe. In Italy too, there have been similar expressions of intolerance for non-Italian workers.

If UK Union fails to make contact with Italian and Portuguese unions, this malaise among workers may spread and will certainly affect UK workers abroad. 

Also, maybe time for unemployed in this country to make a separate "Unemployed Union" and work with the mainstream unions closely.


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

workers barge is an ex-prison ship:
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Foreigners-go-dutch-on-floating.4934404.jp


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

500 out at Shell Stanlow Ellesmere Port.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Of course it was; the British media keep on saying it is.



What the strikers want. Preferential treatment for British workers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm[/QUOTE]


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

This is one of the few occurances where there are unemployed people, joining the picket line, directly, on television, asking for work! 

In the 1930s, didn't a National Unemployed Workers' Movement form?

Isn't NOW a good time to form something like that again?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What the strikers want. Preferential treatment for British workers
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



And that's "anti Italian" is it?

The facts are this:

A workforce is given 90 day notices.  A sub-sub contractor then says none of those workers will even be considered for the work, they'll bring in their own workforce.

And what?  The workforce are to keep schtum about being pissed off in case it come across as a bit xenophobic?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

LA Times report: British workers strike as economic unease spreads
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britain-strikes3-2009feb03,0,3149389.story


----------



## snadge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What the strikers want. Preferential treatment for British workers
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



I've worked with that ex shop steward years ago and he's a sound bloke and fought well for the lads I also remember the shit he had after being blacklisted for being a shop steward, he couldn't get a job on any large contract job after that.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> In the 1930s, didn't a National Unemployed Workers' Movement form?
> 
> Isn't NOW a good time to form something like that again?
> Reply With Quote




I sincerely hope so, the shit the unemployed protesters are to get under Purnell's welfare reforms which see them as 'offenders' wearing orange bibs and picking up litter, no wonder they are fearful and anxious.The question remains will any of the left, even the SP, initiate such a vehicle, the record, re welfare cuts being ignored is not promising. Their new 'youth right to work campaign, sadly doesnt mention benefits,etc.


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

.......


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Who was the guy in sunglasses being interviewed? "Kenny" - was he a striking worker or another supportive out-of-work protestor seeking employment?


I think he was her guy interviewed on newsnight last night - as a steward


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

just about to post this on indymedia with an upload of fridges clip - any comments?

intro paragraph (nicked from fridgemagnet)



> Quotes from News At Ten and Newsnight (half an hour later), Feb 2 2009. The striker's quote is edited in the News At Ten segment in a way that makes it seem he does not want to work alongside foreigners, in the context of a ministerial claim of xenophobia. In the fuller Newsnight report, it is clear that he is saying that he _cannot_ work alongside them, because they are segregated.





> BBC News at 10
> 
> Reporter... "beneath the anger, ministers fear, lies straightforward xenophobia"
> 
> ...


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 3, 2009)

Fawley today.

Rumour has it that a Polish scaffolder has been dismissed for walking out on strike.I will confirm this tomorrow. About 100 scaffolders walked off this morning and formed a picket line including the Poles.

Workers on the civil contract have also joined the walkout yesterday and today .Rumour has it that the employer was going to discipline a shop steward. The employer relented and slapped wrists of all those who walked. 

Interestingly no BNP to be seen......yet. I hear the SP are going down there tomorrow. Good luck to them.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

snadge said:


> I've worked with that ex shop steward years ago and he's a sound bloke and fought well for the lads I also remember the shit he had after being blacklisted for being a shop steward, he couldn't get a job on any large contract job after that.



Get him to join with other unemployed to form an Unemployed-persons Union movement then! Persuade the Unions' bureaucracies to donate a percentage of Union Dues to get it up and running.




			
				danny la rouge said:
			
		

> And that's "anti Italian" is it?


Also, if British Unions do not join up with other European Trades Unions and coordinate, then the bosses/media will continue to play off nationality against nationality. 

If it's perceived abroad as being against Italian workers, then imagine how it would look over here if it were Italian workers protesting against British workers on a contract in Italy saying 'employ Italians before Brits'.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

re Unemployed Workers Union

There were a number of intiatives going on in the mid 90s around the time of the JSA. They did not fare well. The fall out is well documented on the web.


----------



## Cressi (Feb 3, 2009)

David Peters was just on R4 speaking on behalf of the Foreign Lecturers of Italy.......basically he said they were treated like shit, paid less.....had court rulings but the Italian gov just ignored them + changed the law.

He advised people not to work out there.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

chilango said:


> re Unemployed Workers Union
> 
> There were a number of intiatives going on in the mid 90s around the time of the JSA. They did not fare well. The fall out is well documented on the web.



This report, from a man who in December 2008 facilitated a seminar on the future link between UWCs, the TUC and unions in Newcastle, says Unemployed Workers' Centres still exist, but only "50 centres in existence".


> Unemployed Workers Centres have been in existence for some 30 years and back in the 80s and 90s were at the heart of TU campaigns against unemployment. They still continue this fight but also provide an impressive range of services to both the unemployed and working people and their families. However, their numbers have been in decline for some time and now there are only 50 centres in existence.
> 
> It wouldn’t be right to anticipate here the results of the seminar which was attended by representatives from UWCs from the North East, North West, Lancashire and Derbyshire but there was a really positive desire to reffirm and revitalise the kind of work and services that UWCs carry out and provide across the country.
> http://www.strongerunions.org/2008/12/unemployed-workers-centres/


So good news is there is already a small infrastructure in place, but no actual separate Union.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> There were a number of intiatives going on in the mid 90s around the time of the JSA. They did not fare well. The fall out is well documented on the web.




Sadly the SP contibuted to that, objecting to the three strikes model oh, and many of the TUC centres have become Blairite training centres, apolitical, etc.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Sadly the SWP contibuted to that, objecting to the three strikes model



Not just the SWP.

The SP were also very unhelpful, to say the least.

Solidarity between the Unions and the jobless was scant.

The UWCs mentioned above could've been useful, but ime acted as a comfy charity outlet for TU lefties.



Still all that might change.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

Il Manifesto's take on the strike

Il manifesto is the main left/communist newspaper here.

Seems to dwell mostly on the BNP's efforts to exploit things.

Again, seems a v negative take on the strike.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Sorry, I meant the SP, the UWC's had many problems though:, a fair few were controlled by the New Communist Party, the Liverpool one was run very tightly by Kevin Coyne(sic?). Strangely, there is not much in the literature about such centres, though one academic book was highly critical of them


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> "The big problem is boredom," said employee Daniele Gilibisco, 34, who added with a smile: "If they force us to go home, we'll make them give us back England manager Fabio Capello."
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/03/lindsey-refinery-dispute-italian-workers



Anyway, the G has some info on inside the boat, no sign of fear and loathing yet.


----------



## chilango (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Sorry, I meant the SP, the UWC's had many problems though:, a fair few were controlled by the New Communist Party, the Liverpool one was run very tightly by Kevin Coyne(sic?). Strangely, there is not much in the literature about such centres, though one academic book was highly critical of them



Here's one account....



> *The Role of the Cardiff Unemployed Workers' Centre
> *
> Another point of confusion (but not outright conflict) was the nature of the relationship with the local TUC Unemployed Workers' Centre which was being established simultaneously by several people in WAJSA.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> And that's "anti Italian" is it?
> 
> The facts are this:
> 
> ...


Of course not. But they had a choice - fight for jobs for all or fight for jobs for Brits. They've chosen the latter, as the video interview makes plain


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> what is your point? You have nothing to add to the thread, daren't you give us your actual opinion, you're not normally so shy.
> 
> one of the things MC5 will have missed in Paul Masons report was the way the main bbc news deliberately distorted opne protesters words to make him seem like an utter bigot, when he was saying something quite different.
> 
> ...


 
I'll give my opinion when I'm good and ready thanks. Unlike most on here I've actually been on a picket line - whilst working for the post office in fact and on many others in solidarity. Racists wouldn't come anywhere near, but I do recall remonstrating with a fellow postie, who shouted "we don't want your support" at the Gay Liberation Front contingent on a march in support of postal workers in 1971. I welcome the support of all progressives. 



> one of the things MC5 will have missed


 
If anyone wasn't watching Newsnight and the BBC at the time then they would have missed it too?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Unlike most on here I've actually been on a picket line -



Who are you referring to here then? Come on do tell us.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> sorry, only just got your point!
> 
> Good of you to admit being a puppet of the bosses on this one


 
ho, ho, ho


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Who are you referring to here then? Come on do tell us.


 
Whoever hasn't been on a picket line. 

Priority to work within the community, workplace struggle downgraded, pointless working in the trade unions and similar. They know who they are.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

chilango said:


> Il Manifesto's take on the strike
> 
> Il manifesto is the main left/communist newspaper here.
> 
> ...


Things must be very distorted from that distance. Lord knows it's hard enough to find out what's really happening being based in the UK.

But, let's face it, what would someone 1,500 miles away see of these events?

* Some British workers go on strike after some Italian workers arrive
* Those British workers display Brit jobs for Brit workers placards prominently
* They strike for preferential treatment for British workers
* No effort is made to include the Italian workers

With the best will in the world it's not going to look good to an Italian w/c activist


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Whoever hasn't been on a picket line.
> 
> Priority to work within the community, workplace struggle downgraded, pointless working in the trade unions and similar. They know who they are.



Well I think you should point them out in your oh so superior I've been on a picket line and you haven't condescending manner.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well I think you should point them out in your oh so superior I've been on a picket line and you haven't condescending manner.


 
Fuck off.


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Langage Power Station all out, including hundreds of Poles, one in the eyes for the 'racism scanners'

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Langage Power Station all out, including hundreds of Poles, one in the eyes for the 'racism scanners'


Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm


----------



## pk (Feb 3, 2009)

Fruitloop said:


> I don't think it was an 'establishment plot', more likely a combination of time contraint (although only 3 seconds were saved) and crappy journalism looking for a xenophobic angle.



No... I can't agree.

Those little playins are pre-prepared, no editor worth his salt would have been happy allowing some journo or producer to cut the comment where they did, knowing that he goes on to qualify his statement the way he did.

This strikes me as deliberately misleading editing to suit the "they're just racists" line.
Crappy journalism looking for a xenophobic angle - the orders must have come from someone higher up than the editor.

Fuck me how things have changed at the BBC since the Alistair Cambell incident.

Indefensible. And many here know I've tried to defend the BBC in the past.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2009)

maybe it's because the aims of the strikes are being mischaracterised in the media, or that while a *few* of the strikes may have racist aims not all of them do???


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



are you just going to post and repost that link?  Have you missed all the posts about the BBC's explicit agenda?  Your link proves nothing.

The Poles have no doubt joined in because they know - better than you - that this is NOT a strike for 'british jobs for british workers'


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

> I can see both sides of the argument here - I knew Polish guys working who had a fantastic work ethic, more so than you'd ever get from the benefit dumbed down lazy gits that simply won't work.




this to me is worrying though, its becoming endemic, contrasting 'hard working migrants' with lazy (read indigenous) dolies, etc, it is guardian liberals and tory types who are most prone to it, but plenty of lefties have used this argument, Imo, its just as toxic as racism, etc.


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I'll give my opinion when I'm good and ready thanks. Unlike most on here I've actually been on a picket line


lol, you've nothing to say at all then, except crap insults.  

Any idea when you will be ready?  Once the strike is over, and you've had enough time to read _the paper_ and look up all the long words in the dictionary perchance?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



three people replied with honest comments to your original posting of the link above. You simply ignore these replies and the points made and repeat the same insinuation - what are you - a stuck record, spion?

maybe you should ask what those polish workers are ACTUALLY supporting - it might make you reconsider what the original strikers are supporting


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

interesting video I just been sent by pm, which i missed when aired on the BBC,  . The former shop steward makes a really good point about how he has been discriminated against before because of his union activity. The best people to demand H&S protection and the rate for the job being fucked over. A company on the make at lowest cost.

The former shop stewards anti-racism is clear.

'Last resort to employ European workers' is the union response.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> The Poles have no doubt joined in because they know - better than you - that this is NOT a strike for 'british jobs for british workers'




Nicely put (and a damn sight faster than me on the reply button  )


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> lol, you've nothing to say at all then, except crap insults.
> 
> Any idea when you will be ready? Once the strike is over, and you've had enough time to read _the paper_ and look up all the long words in the dictionary perchance?


 
tis shite


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> this is NOT a strike for 'british jobs for british workers'


Have you actually listened to what is said?

Reporter: What will actually get you back to work?

Strike leader (?): Fair play, and a level playing field as regards access to jobs on this site is concerned . . . .

Reporter: If someone came out and said if X percentage of jobs at this refinery and others go to British workers would that be enough to end this dispute?

SL: I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> maybe you should ask what those polish workers are ACTUALLY supporting


What are the Polish workers ACTUALLY supporting?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm


Oh noes. You better go and tell them how badly they've misjudged the strikers. We can't have ill-informed workers making these sorts of decisions, dammit.

Fuck's sake.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Nicely put on another site (hopefully this gives Spion a clue as to the underlying anger of those involved in the dispute despite the crude slogans being taken up by the media) :

"The Viking and Laval ECJ judgements in December 2007 the rights of European firms to 'freedom of establishment' under Article 43 of the EC Treaty (the freedom of businesses to relocate their activities to another EU Member State) and Article 49 (‘freedom to provide services)

These allow firms to bring in their own labour when they are awarded contracts in another EU country which goes against the tradition that which ever nationalisty the firmm is that it recruits mainly from the host country that regulates labour and conditions. Short answer is the jobs don't have to be advertised full stop, the company just recruits and delivers with no questions asked.

Our bins were taken over by a Spanish frm about ten years ago for a while but we didn't have a load of Spanish brought over to replace the valient workfotce of our Direct Services.

If anything this dispute makes it perfectly clear that the EU is beneficial for the bosses and comes before labour."


----------



## dennisr (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What are the Polish workers ACTUALLY supporting?



It been spelt out again and again - are you seriously this dense fella??


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> The PCC says that complaints of inaccuracy in news broadcasts must me sent directly to the BBC
> 
> Any other independent bodies to send the complaints to?



anyone know if this is right about not sending complaints to the press complaints commission directly?

all I can see is this quote, which looks like it's a way of filtering out minor complaints and such like, but I'm kinda thinking that a headline item on bbc's flagship news programme that's so obviously selectively quoted might warrant their attention.



> the best thing to do first is to write to the editor about it as soon as possible. That is usually the quickest way of getting a correction or apology for an inaccuracy or intrusion.
> 
> If the editor hasn't replied to you within a week - or you are unhappy with his or her response - then write to us as soon as possible. We will then consider it. There are certain time limits to making a complaint which are set out below.


----------



## badco (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> anyone know if this is right about not sending complaints to the press complaints commission directly?



Sorry I mispelt OfCom as Press Complaints CommisionSo it may be worth looking at the PCC


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Oh noes. You better go and tell them how badly they've misjudged the strikers. We can't have ill-informed workers making these sorts of decisions, dammit.
> 
> Fuck's sake.


Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?

Why?


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

badco said:


> Sorry I mispelt OfCom as Press Complaints CommisionSo it may be worth looking at the PCC


lol - damn typos eh


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

pk said:


> No... I can't agree.
> 
> Those little playins are pre-prepared, no editor worth his salt would have been happy allowing some journo or producer to cut the comment where they did, knowing that he goes on to qualify his statement the way he did.
> 
> ...



Note this line, from the Unite South West regional officer: 


> Mr Pickford said British workers would probably be left out altogether from a probable jobs boom building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.
> http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html



We don't want or need a new generation of nuclear power plants. 

We want our skilled men to manufacture and build a new generation of regional and localised CHP plants, as well as get involved in manufacturing other alternative energy turbine technologies.



> The Olkiluoto-3 reactor is thus at least 37 months behind schedule after 42 months’ construction, and some 50% over budget. It has also been criticized by the Finnish nuclear safety regulator. The nuclear industry has shifted from presenting the plant as a flagship new-build project to saying this is a normal case of the unique challenges of building first-of-a-kind plants.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant



We need more of these:


> IMMINGHAM COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PLANT (CHP)
> 
> Immingham CHP, which commenced commercial operation late 2004 – and is one of the largest, cleanest and most efficient of its type in Europe – provides steam heat and electrical power to ConocoPhillips Humber refinery and steam heat to the Total Lindsey oil refinery, adjacent to it in North Lincolnshire.
> 
> ...



We need to ensure that skilled Brit workers can build these CHP plants - which a small amount of retraining can accomplish. This will create many jobs!


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

arse... pcc is just for newspapers and magazines it would seem...


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

dennisr said:


> "The Viking and Laval ECJ judgements in December 2007 the rights of European firms to 'freedom of establishment' under Article 43 of the EC Treaty (the freedom of businesses to relocate their activities to another EU Member State) and Article 49 (‘freedom to provide services)
> 
> These allow firms to bring in their own labour when they are awarded contracts in another EU country which goes against the tradition that which ever nationalisty the firmm is that it recruits mainly from the host country that regulates labour and conditions. Short answer is the jobs don't have to be advertised full stop, the company just recruits and delivers with no questions asked.


Are these strikers really protesting against the Viking and Laval cases tho? Fair enough if they are because that would be perfectly justified and the laws need changing to fix the loopholes those cases opened up. 

But that would suggest these Italian workers are being brought in as "cheap labour" and undermining British labour standards - is that the case here? As far as I can tell, these workers haven't been brought in by the company to save money, but just because they won the contract (as many British companies employing 1000s of British workers all across the EU have). If they aren't undercutting our labour standards, then unfortunately you have a Catch 22 situation, because what's benefiting these Italians at the expense of local British workers is also what's benefiting British workers in the EU (at the expense of local workers in that country). 

If this is really just about "British jobs for British people" as the placards say, then it does bring up a number of contradictions. Like I said, 1000s of British people work in the EU. If you change the law so only British people can have British jobs, then all those Brits abroad would also have to loose their jobs. 

Also, what would happen if a company in London won a contract in Newcastle and took a load of cockneys up? Viewing it as an "internationalist" you'd have to say there was no difference between that and what 's happening with these Italian workers.

I appreciate that at over 1000 posts somebody has asked and answered my questions before (probably many times!)


----------



## belboid (Feb 3, 2009)

free spirit said:


> arse... pcc is just for newspapers and magazines it would seem...



as i said before...only the 'victim' can complain anyway. not third parties


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm



Because they're racist xenophobes in favour of British jobs for British workers. Obvious really.... surely?!


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Because they're racist xenophobes in favour of British jobs for British workers. Obvious really.... surely?!


Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?

Why?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?
> 
> Why?


Because I'm not focusing on the more cack-handed sloganeering or the spin put on it by the media.

Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working. Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.

This makes a mockery of any local collective bargaining. Any agreements reached by unions are immediately irrelevant unless they undercut the cheapest workers available anywhere in the EU. We export jobs to low wage economies, and now the EU is insisting that we also import low wages.

It's a race to the bottom engineered by the bosses in Europe and spun as pure xenophobia by the media.

You don't support the nationalism  of Hamas, but you stand by the Palestinian struggle despite the flaws in its leadership. But you can't support a strike because some of those involved in it are expressing nationalist sentiments. I don't get you at all.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 3, 2009)

belboid said:


> as i said before...only the 'victim' can complain anyway. not third parties


where does this information come from?

I can see nothing about it on the ofcom site, and it there's nothing about having to complain to the programme makers first either once a programme has been broadcast



> We do not watch or listen to programmes before they are broadcast. If you would like to complain about a programme that has yet to be broadcast, you should contact the broadcaster directly.
> *If the programme has been broadcast and you have concerns about it then you may make a complaint.*



and the relevant bits of the ofcom code



> Due impartiality and due accuracy in news
> 
> 5.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.
> 5.2 Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. Corrections should be appropriately scheduled.
> ...





> Matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy
> 
> 5.11 In addition to the rules above, due impartiality must be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy by the person providing a service (listed above) in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes.
> Meaning of “matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy”:
> ...



I think I'm going to be making a complaint


btw, I'm not disputing that it would have more effect if the person who'd been misrepresented was to make a complaint, just saying that as far as I can see anyone is entitled to make a complaint if they see something that they believe breaks the code.


----------



## TwoTimer (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Are these strikers really protesting against the Viking and Laval cases tho? Fair enough if they are because that would be perfectly justified and the laws need changing to fix the loopholes those cases opened up.
> 
> But that would suggest these Italian workers are being brought in as "cheap labour" and undermining British labour standards - is that the case here? As far as I can tell, these workers haven't been brought in by the company to save money, but just because they won the contract (as many British companies employing 1000s of British workers all across the EU have). If they aren't undercutting our labour standards, then unfortunately you have a Catch 22 situation, because what's benefiting these Italians at the expense of local British workers is also what's benefiting British workers in the EU (at the expense of local workers in that country).
> 
> If this is really just about "British jobs for British people" as the placards say, then it does bring up a number of contradictions. Like I said, 1000s of British people work in the EU. If you change the law so only British people can have British jobs, then all those Brits abroad would also have to loose their jobs.



No one, including even the BNP is asking for a change in the law that would mean that jobs can only be done by British workers. 



> Also, what would happen if a company in London won a contract in Newcastle and took a load of cockneys up? Viewing it as an "internationalist" you'd have to say there was no difference between that and what 's happening with these Italian workers.



Most workers aren't internationalists or even nationalists. They want a decent living and as long as they have the perception of fairness, they couldn't give a fuck about the age old nationalist v internationalist debate.


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What are the Polish workers ACTUALLY supporting?



Er....their workmates on strike? 

Shit that was hard to work out.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working.


Well that's the point of having EU wide legislation to prevent that from happening. There's minimum standards that all EU countries have to implement, but unfortunately minimum wage is not part of EU responsibility. However, you can only import labour to the minimum standards of the host country, so workers cannot be hired on lower than the British minimum wage (which obviously doesn't help in this case). The two court cases just highlight that there is a problem that needs fixing. National collective bargaining agreements need to be enshrined in EU laws. At the moment they aren't - but not _because_ the EU wants companies to be able to undercut any workforce, just because it didn't occur to them at the time. The whole point of EU employment law is to prevent a race to the bottom and I'm sure this is something they'll be looking to fix



> Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.


But aren't the Italian workers at Lindsey being hired on the same terms as the existing workforce? If they are, then unfortunately there isn't really an argument to be made against them being hired, other than "British jobs for British workers"...


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

TwoTimer said:


> No one, including even the BNP is asking for a change in the law that would mean that jobs can only be done by British workers.


That's fair enough, but if the Italians are not undercutting British labour standards, then it would be odd for the workforce to all of a sudden come out on strike against the Laval rulings now and not at the time



> Most workers aren't internationalists or even nationalists. They want a decent living and as long as they have the perception of fairness, they couldn't give a fuck about the age old nationalist v internationalist debate.


I completely agree and support any pressure to close the loopholes in the posted workers directive, but as far as I can see, unless the Italian company is undercutting existing standards (I'm only going on what Total have said, so feel free to correct me anyone), then the issue is not related to the posted workers directive but to the right to work anywhere in the EU


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?
> 
> Why?




So because of one comment by one of the strike leaders we should oppose the strike, tell the Poles they're either stupid or racist and then sit on the sidelines wagging our fingers whilst giving the far-right free reign?! Brilliant plan..... So you never support strikes unless you support every single demand that ALL the leaders/spokespersons of the strike support/argue for?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Well that's the point of having EU wide legislation to prevent that from happening. There's minimum standards that all EU countries have to implement, but unfortunately minimum wage is not part of EU responsibility. However, you can only import labour to the minimum standards of the host country, so workers cannot be hired on lower than the British minimum wage (which obviously doesn't help in this case). The two court cases just highlight that there is a problem that needs fixing. National collective bargaining agreements need to be enshrined in EU laws. At the moment they aren't - but not _because_ the EU wants companies to be able to undercut any workforce, just because it didn't occur to them at the time. The whole point of EU employment law is to prevent a race to the bottom and I'm sure this is something they'll be looking to fix



I think you're a bit naive about what the EU "wants" (there are lots of competing interests and power struggles), but it doesn't change the outcome of the Laval case, and that is what is being fought against. Or perhaps we should all just sit back and trust in the benign magnanimity of the EU to sort it all out fairly in the end?

Did you read this link? http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jun2006/swed-j27.shtml




CyberRose said:


> But aren't the Italian workers at Lindsey being hired on the same terms as the existing workforce? If they are, then unfortunately there isn't really an argument to be made against them being hired, other than "British jobs for British workers"...


That's what they claim, but AFAIK we haven't been given any figures. They're being put up on an ex-prison ship, and the workers will be paying for their bed and board out of their wages. It's pretty easy to make the headline hourly rate comparable to those agreed by the British unions but then deduct a disproportionate amount for bed and board.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> I think you're a bit naive about what the EU "wants"


Well I'm just going on the trend of current EU employment legislation. That shows they don't want a "race to the bottom"



> but it doesn't change the outcome of the Laval case, and that is what is being fought against.


It doesn't change the outcome of that case, and that needs to be changed. However, I'm not convinced that this IS what is being fought against here. If the Italians are on the same terms and conditions, then the Laval ruling is not relevant to these strikes (which doesn't mean it shouldn't be opposed)



> That's what they claim, but AFAIK we haven't been given any figures. They're being put up on an ex-prison ship, and the workers will be paying for their bed and board out of their wages. It's pretty easy to make the headline hourly rate comparable to those agreed by the British unions but then deduct a disproportionate amount for bed and board.


So the strike is because the Italians _might_ be getting paid less!!!

Let me ask you a question...if the Italians _were_ on the same terms and conditions, then is there any justification to the strike?


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> So the strike is because the Italians _might_ be getting paid less!!!
> 
> Let me ask you a question...if the Italians _were_ on the same terms and conditions, then is there any justification to the strike?


Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?

I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.


----------



## Zeppo (Feb 3, 2009)

GMB are stating this dispute is about class not racism. Seeing thousands of workers breaking UK employment law in unofficial action is to be supported. Trade union demands are being added and let us hope - we see more action as the recession bites.

Yes the British jobs for British workers is the wrong stance. Lots of people in a dispute may have very dubious ideas about society and some contradictory views on race etc.. The point in a dispute to my mind is to win.

How many disputes have we lost or been sold out on?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?



Just a thought, maybe, just maybe the IREM employees are skilled and experienced in constructing the particular desulphuristation plant that is being built. Not saying this is definately the case but it might not be just a matter of saving money on wages.



ymu said:


> I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.



but theres no evidence that they are being paid less either (or have I missed something) and you're quite happy supporting the strikes despite the lack of evidence (more "what ifs") that may justify the action.


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Well, there's the thing. Why would they go to the expense of bringing workers in, and the trouble of providing them with accommodation, if it was costing them the same as employing local workers?


Either IREM offered the contract cheaper, or the workers are more skilled. 



> I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.


But you ARE arguing what-ifs! You admit there is no evidence to say whether or not the Italians are undercutting the Brits, yet you support the strike anyway! (Well, Total say the workers are on the same terms and conditions, so that's at least some evidence, if not conclusive).

So, if the Italians are on the same terms and conditions as the Brits, you would oppose the strike?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Of course not. But they had a choice - fight for jobs for all or fight for jobs for Brits. They've chosen the latter, as the video interview makes plain



your position is idiotic .. if there are 300 jobs on a contract and hundreds of unemployed in the locality and who can and want the jobs and the scum bosses have brought in their own workforce  .. then to demand that ALL those on the outside contract keep their employment is simple nonsense .. 

so you want the 300 italians/portugese  to keep their jobs as part of an anti union scam AND employ another 300 locals?? 

 your position is dogmatic nonsense . 

the only w/c position is to support the workers here demanding labour at union rates for people living here and to demand the current contract is scrapped


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Whoever hasn't been on a picket line.
> 
> Priority to work within the community, workplace struggle downgraded, pointless working in the trade unions and similar. They know who they are.


you talking about me sunshine? hope not .. i've been on strike and picket lines more than most on here and in the last few years too!  my section are famous for it around here!    but i can multi task .. i can recognise the joint neccessity of union and community work


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Beats me why Poles would support a strike that explicitly aims to win favour for British workers over foreigners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm


cos a lot of poles who live here now recognise that trade unions can only work if you take action like this and like pretty well every but you recognise that these strkes are not as you dogmatically believe them to  be


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> This company is breaking agreements and blacklisting union activists. So it's clear now that they are hoping to use the Italian workers as scabs, in an attempt to weaken union organisation and attack wages and conditions.


 good man  

( and people doubted you would come thru here!  have a word with that spion )


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> attack wages and conditions.


Where did you get this from?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> you talking about me sunshine? hope not .. i've been on strike and picket lines more than most on here and in the last few years too!  my section are famous for it around here!  but i can multi task .. i can recognise the joint neccessity of union and community work


 
I've been threatened with a disciplinary only last week - i kid you not.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Where did you get this from?


 
My class instincts tell me.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Because I'm not focusing on the more cack-handed sloganeering or the spin put on it by the media.


The thing is, it's not just the nationalist sentiments of 'some of those involved' or 'cack-handed sloganeering'. 

The strike has a list of demands as agreed by a mass meeting, and the only strike demand that has anything to say about who should be employed in future at the site - THE main issue here, no? - explicitly limits that to 'locally skilled' labour. Then there's the statement of the local union leader on the BBC video who was asked 'What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour." 

How else am I supposed to take that other than BJ4BW?



ymu said:


> Thanks to EU rulings it is now the case that EU workers can be bussed anywhere in the EU and employed under the terms and conditions in place in their home countries, not those prevailing in the country where they are actually working. Wages are much much lower in Italy and Spain, and lower still in Eastern Europe.
> 
> This makes a mockery of any local collective bargaining. Any agreements reached by unions are immediately irrelevant unless they undercut the cheapest workers available anywhere in the EU. We export jobs to low wage economies, and now the EU is insisting that we also import low wages.
> 
> ...


I am totally against undercutting of labour rates and attacks on conditions. I think there should be strikes against redundancies and strikes and demonstrations for massive injections of funds by the bosses to pay for jobs and training - _without discrimination on grounds of nationality _. But that is not what this strike is about - it is explicitly for preferential treatment of British workers. If it can be transformed by ditching the local stipulation on employment preferences then fine, but that hasn't happened yet.

I stand by these workers in the sense that I think their anger is justified at redundancy and attacks on working conditions, but I do not support a strike aimed at favouring British over other workers. 

Re Hamas, I do not support them politically. I am for actions against them by democratic and progressive organisations in Gaza and want to see them defeated in Gaza by something better. The only parallel with the strikes is that despite disagreeing with the aim of this action, I would defend those unions from attempts to break them up by the state as I would Hamas against the IDF.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

MC5 said:


> I've been threatened with a disciplinary only last week - i kid you not.


 MC5 is back


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> . But that is not what this strike is about - it is explicitly for preferential treatment of British workers. .



Im giving a very tired, no it isnt. The reasons have been posted on u75 and on the SP website.

My conclusion is 
a/ you dont understand industrial workers 
and
b/.you havent a clue how as a socialist you are meant to work amongst industrial workers

For b/ read how the SP are doing it , and Im not a SP member!!


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> So because of one comment by one of the strike leaders we should oppose the strike, tell the Poles they're either stupid or racist and then sit on the sidelines wagging our fingers whilst giving the far-right free reign?! Brilliant plan..... So you never support strikes unless you support every single demand that ALL the leaders/spokespersons of the strike support/argue for?


The strike is about employment and sets a demand for jobs for British workers in preference to foreigners. You can pretend it was 'one comment by one of the strike leaders' as if it's some maverick but the demand accepted by the mass meeting is clear that 'locally skilled' labour should be preferred over non-local labour.

I never said anyone should sit on the sidelines. Socialists should be there, arguing that the strikers drop the demand for jobs to go to British workers rather than foreigners and trying to get the strikers to appeal to the Italians to come out on strike against redundancies and for *jobs for all regardless of nationality*.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Im giving a very tired, no it isnt. The reasons have been posted on u75 and on the SP website.
> 
> My conclusion is
> a/ you dont understand industrial workers
> ...


You simply do not understand that the strike is explicitly aimed at giving preferential treatment to British workers over foreigners.

Reporter: What will actually get you back to work?

Strike leader (?): Fair play, and a level playing field as regards access to jobs on this site is concerned . . . .

Reporter: If someone came out and said if X percentage of jobs at this refinery and others go to British workers would that be enough to end this dispute?

SL: I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour. 

I was an industrial worker for years. I've argued unpopular shit in difficult circumstances and I know when so-called socialists have bottled it


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Im giving a very tired, no it isnt.


As this is an unofficial strike, not technically supported by the Unions, the only people in a position to say what this strike is or is not about are the workers at Lindsey. Seems like there is a lot of opportunism going on here, from the far left to the far right. The far left want the strike to be about preventing undercutting labour standards (of which the UK has some of the lowest in the EU ironically!), and the far right want the strike to be about anti-immigration/protectionism. 

If the Italians are being hired on worse terms and conditions to the British workers, because of the Posted Workers Directive, then the left win and should be supported...

If the Italians are being hired on the same terms and conditions as the British workers then the far right win and those supporting the strike for "left" reasons have scored a spectacular own goal!

There is a mass movement going on and everyone wants to harness it for their own ends...it all comes down to what the workers at Lindsay say they want, and nobody else...


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> You simply do not understand that the strike is explicitly aimed at giving preferential treatment to British workers over foreigners.
> 
> "SL: I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour."



but the simple mistake you are making is shown in your language about 'foreigners' 

.. look at your sentance and then the SL sentance you qoute .. they are actually entirely differrent 

there are VERY differrent implications 

.. yours is of racism and zenophobia and of being negative and against forigners 

the SL sentance says nothing of the sort .. there is NO loaded language in the SL sentance as there is in yours .. it simply says the company should employ people locally B4 they employ people abroad .. 

all the racism/zenophobia is in your head re this qoute 

as MC5 now states it is clear to everyone WHY this ( and almost all similar ) company employs abroad rather than locally


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> You simply do not understand that the strike is explicitly aimed at giving preferential treatment to British workers over foreigners.


That is the impression one gets from the news reports (saw Channel 4 earlier and it was the same as the BBC, probably worse than what you posted). However, you need to be careful of listening to three or four people's comments and applying them to hundreds - it is worrying tho if that _is_ applicable to the rest of the strike force.

One other impression I get as well, tho, is that the workers seem to be under the _impression_ that the Italians are to be employed on worse terms and conditions than the British workers. That would suggest they are striking not for "British jobs for British people", but to prevent undercutting of labour standards. 

But it does beg where they got that information from considering all we have "officially" is a statement from Total saying the Italians are on the same terms/conditions. Maybe they just assumed it?


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> as MC5 now states it is clear to everyone WHY this ( and almost all similar ) company employs abroad rather than locally


Ah but it _doesn't_ explain why they would hire Italians and not Latvians, and it doesn't explain how any British company ever wins a contract in an EU country!


----------



## treelover (Feb 3, 2009)

Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> you need to be careful of listening to three or four people's comments


Get it from the horse's mouth http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm

And read the strike's demands, which include: "Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available."


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


For a minute there I thought I was gonna read a headline saying "British jobs for Muslims"!!!


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


I'm no fan of the SWP but that's spot on


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> For a minute there I thought I was gonna read a headline saying "British jobs for Muslims"!!!


*laughs* Your funniest comment EVER. Nice one


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf




and simply full of rubbish .. alleges unions have focused on foreign workers when they simply have not .. disgusting


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


First copy of SW I've looked at in ages. How you've got the nerve to say they only talk about antiimperialism I do not know


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf




Their headline is:

*Blame the bosses not 'foreign workers'​*
I disagree with the Social Workers' silly PC scare quotes around the phrase _foreign workers_ - as if there were something wrong in calling foreign workers foreign workers!

But, apart from that, I agree with the headline.  Of course we should blame the employers, not the Italian and Portuguese workers.

I'd like to think that the Social Workers will have the sense to come down on the side of the strikers and protesters, despite their not liking all the slogans used.

If they don't, I suppose they can always fuck off back to the mosques, but they have not had much luck there either, have they?  Poor old Social Workers!


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> but the simple mistake you are making is shown in your language about 'foreigners'


I wonder who said this?


> so you support using foreigners for cheap labour too!!!?? bloody hell .. child of migranst supports cheap labour system
> 
> where have i said closing the borders? i support open borders too .. i also support the bosses being strung up for using cheap migrant labour when all the black ( and other ) kids around here are unemployed .. clearly you do not give a fuck about them
> 
> "the bosses will continue .. blah blah blah" .. hey ho you don't think things can get better??? so lets just keep the old cheap labour system?? ..


clue


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


What part of that article do you think attacks the strikers?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)




----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2009)

**oops, pressed wrong button**


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 3, 2009)

BNP said:
			
		

> if we had some sort of control over wages/jobs 95% of immigrants would NOT come here as they know there would not be jobs for them.






			
				durruti02 said:
			
		

> ...brits are losing jobs to immigrants...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Of course not. But they had a choice - fight for jobs for all or fight for jobs for Brits. They've chosen the latter, as the video interview makes plain


The thing is there is an official narrative here.  It basically says: "_Oh dear, you don't want to start messing with this stuff.  That would be protectionism, and that's bad - it's against free trade, which is good for all of us.  And it's especially bad when labour does it.  We need to stay competitive, and cut costs, and that'll be good for everyone. Trust us. So what well do is this.  We'll call you xenophobes.  That way, the liberal media will turn against you, and we'll have divided the working class and turned it in on itself_."

We can either buy into that, and pick up on those voices from within the strike that the media chooses to accentuate and distort, and use that as a reason not to support the strike.  Or we can see the broader picture: that this is an issue as old as the trades union movement itself.  And in those early years, the answer was - make sure everyone is unionised, build solidarity with migrant workers.

Now, you will never achieve either aim if you tell the strikers that their case is off the scale and they have no leg to stand on.  And perhaps more to the point, the bosses will have won: the working class will be divided, and pay and conditions will be undercut.


----------



## where to (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Do you support a strike where the stated aim, as expressed by one of its leaders is: "The last resort should be to employ European labour."?
> 
> Why?



you have repeated yourself for several pages now with this quote.

when you started out you weren't sure that the guy was a strike leader, and put a question mark in there because there is actually no evidence that he is a strike leader in that clip.

have you got evidence that he is now or are you just pulling a fast one?


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> pick up on those voices from within the strike that the media chooses to accentuate and distort


Can you provide any sources that show this is the case? Any quotes from bodies on the ground showing that they are not striking for the "wrong" reasons?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

where to said:


> you have repeated yourself for several pages now with this quote.
> 
> when you started out you weren't sure that the guy was a strike leader, and put a question mark in there because there is actually no evidence that he is a strike leader in that clip.
> 
> have you got evidence that he is now or are you just pulling a fast one?


No fast one. Just a failure to put a ? after every mention of this guy. 

He basically says exactly the same as is in the mass meeting approved list of strike demands doesn't he?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> We can either buy into that, and pick up on those voices from within the strike that the media chooses to accentuate and distort


What, like the demands of the strikers that the union 'nominate' 'locally skilled' labour for future work? How is that picking on something that's accentutated and distorted?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2009)

BBC news today spent 10 minutes describing and reporting on how the Great Snow Tragedy was unfolding, and a scant 2-3 minutes on the reporting of the strikes. Finger on the pulse of the zietgiest eh


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Can you provide any sources that show this is the case? Any quotes from bodies on the ground showing that they are not striking for the "wrong" reasons?



a) Evidence of distortion:

- 

_Creative editing of quotation to fit the "racism" narrative._

(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/race-bbc ).

- repeated headlining the strike as "protests against Italian workers".  (No, it's protests against the actions of bosses).

b)  These are the demands adopted by the Lindsey Oil Refinery construction strikers at a mass meeting on 2 February:

* No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action.

* All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement.

* Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available.

* Government and employer investment in proper training/apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for a future for young people.

* All Immigrant labour to be unionised.

* Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active integrated Trade Union Members.

* Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

* Re-instatement of [victimised worker] John McKewan


(John Monks, general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, said the Lindsey refinery dispute was typical of problems that had become apparent across the EU where workers were employed outside their home country.

The issue arose in Britain because UK law requires foreign workers to be employed only in line with minimum legal conditions, rather than on the same pay and conditions as homegrown staff in the same jobs, said Monks. This meant that workers from countries where pay and conditions were less favourable were able to undercut British workers, and European law deemed that any attempt by unions to enforce the same conditions would breach directives on the free movement of labour.  http://www.etuc.org/a/5795)


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> What, like the demands of the strikers that the union 'nominate' 'locally skilled' labour for future work? How is that picking on something that's accentutated and distorted?



The work being done now is being done by sub-sub contractors who did not even consider for the work skilled labour from the site recently in receipt of 90 day notices, but brought in their own staff, on pay and conditions we must assume undercut the going rate.  Simple question.  Yes or no.  Is that acceptable?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> The work being done now is being done by sub-sub contractors who did not even consider for the work skilled labour from the site recently in receipt of 90 day notices, but brought in their own staff, on pay and conditions we must assume undercut the going rate.  Simple question.  Yes or no.  Is that acceptable?


Why must we assume the rate has been undercut? What's the evidence?

But assuming it is, my answer to your question is 'No'. What should the response be? Strike for equal rates or strike for jobs for local/British workers before Europeans?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> But assuming it is, my answer to your question is 'No'.


OK.

So now what?  Wring our hands that anger is sometimes expressed in ways we're maybe uncomfortable with?  Or fight the bosses and their unacceptable actions?


----------



## cantsin (Feb 3, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf




where does it attack the strikers you dodgy little toad ?


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> OK.
> 
> So now what?  Wring our hands that anger is sometimes expressed in ways we're maybe uncomfortable with?  Or fight the bosses and their unacceptable actions?


Do the latter. By going to the strikers and arguing that the strike's demands to favour local workers are clearly and publically repudiated and a new offensive - that makes serious fraternal overtures to the Italian workers - and gets *everyone *out to defend and extend jobs for all


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Do the latter. By going to the strikers and arguing that the strike's demands to favour local workers are clearly and publically repudiated and a new offensive - that makes serious fraternal overtures to the Italian workers - and gets *everyone *out to defend and extend jobs for all


Feel free.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 3, 2009)

aye i saw that dotcommie. what a fucking joke.


----------



## ymu (Feb 3, 2009)

Danny just posted the link, but in case anyone missed it, Padraig Reidy in the Guardian today on the selective quoting from Nick Robinson:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/race-bbc


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

ymu said:


> Danny just posted the link, but in case anyone missed it, Padraig Reidy in the Guardian today on the selective quoting from Nick Robinson:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/race-bbc


And, lest it be missed, the salient quote is:


> Constant emphasis was placed on objections to "foreign workers" per se, rather than fear of workers' wages being undercut, which would seem to be the real issue.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

Yeah, keep convincing yourself that's 'the real issue' (evidence?????). And yet what the strike leader (?) interviewed by the BBC said would be the conditions for victory of the strike completely matches the strike's demand for employment of 'locally skilled' labour.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Do the latter. By going to the strikers and arguing that the strike's demands to favour local workers are clearly and publically repudiated and a new offensive - that makes serious fraternal overtures to the Italian workers - and gets *everyone *out to defend and extend jobs for all



The Sicilian workers are bussed in and out, trapped in an effective prison ship, and charged bed and board for the privilege. IREM management no doubt will have told them that mobs of English want to attack them, if there are any rumblings of discontent.
It makes it very difficult to make those overtures but yes they are to be desired.


----------



## Spion (Feb 3, 2009)

sihhi said:


> The Sicilian workers are bussed in and out, trapped in an effective prison ship, and charged bed and board for the privilege. IREM management no doubt will have told them that mobs of English want to attack them, if there are any rumblings of discontent.
> It makes it very difficult to make those overtures but yes they are to be desired.


The strikers seem to have no problem producing placards. They could manage some in Italian saying "Strike with us brothers for jobs for all", if the will was there to do so


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 3, 2009)

Spion said:


> Yeah, keep convincing yourself that's 'the real issue' (evidence?????).


So what _is_ the "real issue"?  _We don't mind being undercut, but not by Dagoes_?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 3, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> aye i saw that dotcommie. what a fucking joke.



It comes off as almost deliberate tbh, an attempt to play down the seriousness of this labor dispute.


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> The strikers seem to have no problem producing placards. They could manage some in Italian saying "Strike with us brothers for jobs for all", if the will was there to do so



If you're anywhere at all near Lindsey try going along with a tray of cookies and that poster in Italian, Portuguese and English. I don't think those on strike/demonstrating (including those who have been without work for several months) would evict you- they would welcome your support. They have however evicted the BNP.

The BJFBW placards are trying to "skewer" Gordon Brown.

No placards are perfect. You could say a placard such as Unison's "I love the NHS" from last year supports a classist, managerial, hierarchical organisation that discriminates against those without NHS numbers and hence is classist, managerialist and racist - but from the people holding it and their aspirations you know that that would be bullshit.

It's the same here - of course racists and xenophobes exist, but they are not at all the majority of those in action including the placard holders - it's facile to think so.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2009)

sihhi said:


> If you're anywhere at all near Lindsey try going along with a tray of cookies and that poster in Italian, Portuguese and English. I don't think those on strike/demonstrating (including those who have been without work for several months) would evict you- they would welcome your support. They have however evicted the BNP.


Spion, you'll need this: "*Uniscali, i fratelli!*"


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> The strikers seem to have no problem producing placards. They could manage some in Italian saying "Strike with us brothers for jobs for all", if the will was there to do so


I'd be surprised if placards of this type don't start appearing. Polish workers have just come out in support, which would suggest that they don't view it as a primarily racist or xenophobic campaign but rather one that they recognise as their own struggle. There have been attempts to communicate between the two groups of workers, and no doubt there will be more.

Why are you flogging this oh so dead horse quite so hard?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

> Some ministers and many MPs do understand what is at stake, and appreciate the real sense of injustice felt by many of the strikers, and would like to block off the loophole being exploited by some of the more notorious construction and engineering companies.



From one of the best articles I've seen yet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/peter-mandelson-wildcat-strikes


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

i read an article in the telegraph (yeh i know) suggesting that this may develop into a general strike...


----------



## sihhi (Feb 4, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Spion, you'll need this: "*Uniscali, i fratelli!*"



in Portuguese

Uniscalli i fratelli : Let's unite, brothers. 

Perhaps the call for the Sicilians could be "Sciopero bianco!" :  "a work to rule" to stretch the job out so that they get paid and those promised work but who were then denied at the last minute also get a look in.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 4, 2009)

sihhi said:


> If you're anywhere at all near Lindsey try going along with a tray of cookies and that poster in Italian, Portuguese and English. I don't think those on strike/demonstrating (including those who have been without work for several months) would evict you- they would welcome your support. They have however evicted the BNP.
> 
> The BJFBW placards are trying to "skewer" Gordon Brown.
> 
> ...



good post.


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> From one of the best articles I've seen yet: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/03/peter-mandelson-wildcat-strikes


Aye. Very good.



> No dispute of this magnitude happens without very good reason and without a very real sense of grievance. Once the Lindsey workers heard that another company, Alstom were also refusing to hire local labour, instead bringing in Spanish and Portuguese workers at Staythorpe Power Station, the blue touch paper was lit. Striking workers and their unions claim that it is the employers who are "playing nationality off against nationality" in a bid to break the national agreement. For good measure, the GMB has tried to warn off far right groups hoping to milk the dispute for their own ends, saying: "The BNP should take heed, UK construction workers will not tolerate another racist attempt to sever fraternal relations with workers from other nations."



They're only saying that to get the liberals on board, obv. Really they're just dirty working-class racists who need educating out of their terrible ways.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

ymu said:
			
		

> Polish workers have just come out in support, which would suggest that they don't view it as a primarily racist or xenophobic campaign but rather one that they recognise as their own struggle.





> Virtually all work on the site ground to a halt when more than 500 workers failed to turn up at 10am today.
> 
> A small group of foreign workers, mainly Polish, who had been bussed into the site were taken home by coach just before 11m when bosses decided it was unsafe for them to work with so little manpower available.
> http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html


http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html

Also some interesting comments underneath that linked article


----------



## where to (Feb 4, 2009)

> *Deal hope in foreign workers row*
> 
> A possible solution to the row over the use of foreign staff at the Lindsey Oil Refinery in Lincolnshire will be put to union leaders later.
> 
> ...




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7868777.stm


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html
> 
> Also some interesting comments underneath that linked article


OMGZ! Someone tell the Poles they've got it all wrong! This is not what the strike is about at all!



> Mr Pickford said workers had walked out in “general sympathy with what’s happening in the construction industry,” where British workers were being excluded from applying for jobs by foreign subcontractors.
> 
> He said: “All the Polish workers have walked out as well, because this is not an issue against foreign workers.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

one of the comments on the article: 




			
				gary said:
			
		

> To all the people on here who are talking total rubbish im one of the lads who walked out on wednesday.How anyone can call us lazy obvously is sat behind a nice desk in a heated office.I set off to lindsey at 5.30am get home at 6.30pm after a full day of been 50ft up coloums in the freezing cold wind and rain using a grinder to cut thick steel pipes all day and just general graft.. And when the work on the powerstations in the summer starts it 12hr 7days in red hot mucky boilers doing the same thing so lazy is very far from it.
> 
> When we went back to lor after xmas they took the weekends off although the italians would be working them.The thing whats happening now is that this is all been turned round to a race issue when that is not the case we were never apposed to working with italians if they won the contract fair then so be it .All we ask for foreign companyt is that if they need more men recruit local labour but irem have point blank refused. mandlson said weve not been discriminated againsed becouse no brit has been refused a job that is cos all advertisments have been in italy total arnt breaking the law we know this but it is the law thats the problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

ymu said:


> Really they're just dirty working-class racists who need educating out of their terrible ways.


I don't believe that Spion is thinking that the strikers are "dirty working class racists". The rank and file did initially use a nationalist slogan BJFBW but they must have realised that that slogan could be misleading as to their aims and seem to have dropped that and their real concerns are brought to the fore. 

I'm blaming Gordon Brown, who used an old National Front slogan which he must have forsaw as red rag to the BNP 'bull, who are desparate to capitalise on discord and see large strike action as a recruitment ground. 
Also, because Brown knew already that large construction projects have mainly been awarded to non-UK-based firms that are well known to use contract labour from outside UK at different rates/conditions. 

Alstom (French firm) are reknowned for this already.  

But the strikers demands are still a tad contradictory and do need refining so there is no misunderstanding from other Trades Unions, yes? 


> “The current economic crisis,” say the two officials, “caused by a capitalist system devoted to financial speculation, lacking rules, and centred on debt, is producing one of the worst social evils: the poor against the poor, workers against workers.” Furthermore, while the economic crisis has led to the loss of thousands of jobs, for Nicolosi and Petrucci, “the solutions put forward at Davos are exactly the same as those which created the crisis. Even in Europe, unemployment is growing and fear is becoming a social phenomenon. There are cases of racial intolerance in Italy too: odious, unacceptable, to be condemned and fought with maximum energy.”
> 
> But the two union leaders also say that we should understand the ill-feeling underlying the events at Lindsey Oil. “We have a duty,” they say “to understand the workers’ unhappiness. The consequences of European judgements on the labour market, on the right to free movement of goods and people, are multiplying, opening the door to social dumping.” In this regard they cite the recent Viking Line and Laval judgements from the European Court “on the pre-eminence of employers’ rights over those of trade unions sanctioned by national contracts and laws, which have aroused justified concern from trade unions, lawyers and workers. In these cases ‘salary dumping’ becomes an opportunity for the firms to cut labour costs and creates unfair competition.”
> 
> ...



I can't see much of a problem getting the French trade union federations on board, can you?


> The French trade union federations’ call for mass participation on 29 January is urgent, and it is a legitimate “workers’ awakening” in the resistance of the neo-liberal agenda.
> http://www.icem.org/en/22-Western-E...Electric-Sectors-for-Jobs-Training-Fair-Wages


Solidarity with other European Unionised and contract workers is a top priority.



			
				International Federation of Chemical said:
			
		

> CAMPAIGN ON CONTRACT AND AGENCY LABOUR
> The substitution or limiting of permanent direct employment by the use of contract & agency labour has clearly become a priority issue for countless workers and their trade unions, in every region of the world and every sector.
> 
> Each year, more and more directly employed jobs are lost to sub-contracting companies or agencies, which usually employ workers with little or no job security, inferior benefits, and with substandard working conditions. This is leading to a two-tier workforce with less and less directly employed workers, and increasing numbers employed through contracts or agencies.
> ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

if anyone is up for getting involved in an uenmployed workers union, then i would be very willing to as well ...


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

some of the comments on the article are unbelievable tho. 

strikers are the scourge of the nation apparently.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

Europe-wide solidarity is going to be the only way forward, hence why it is so very important to make sure that these connections are made now.

Check the comments here from Black Tuesday, 2005 (France) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4305456.stm


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

With any luck, Brown will go, and his crazy plans for future power provision will go with him! 

Meanwhile, back in Blighty, some kind of deal is being hatched?


> *Jobs shared*
> Talks involving the main parties in the dispute began on Monday at a hotel near Grimsby.
> 
> On Tuesday night, Acas released a statement saying: "Conclusions are to be discussed with a large group of local trade union officials first thing tomorrow morning.
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7868777.stm


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Yeah, keep convincing yourself that's 'the real issue' (evidence?????). And yet what the strike leader (?) interviewed by the BBC said would be the conditions for victory of the strike completely matches the strike's demand for employment of 'locally skilled' labour.



It's looking as though the guy interviewed by the BBC might not have been a 'strike leader'. 
The three men seem to have been taken aside for the purpose of the interview.

There's a worried post about it here: http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=275.0


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 4, 2009)

Any Irish posters might be a bit surprised by the SWP's line on this strike if they recall their fervent support of workers involved in a dispute in Dublin a little while ago. Have a look at the demands in leaflets and reports put out by the SWP and its electoral coalition, the People Before Profit Alliance.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74191
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406

How things change.


----------



## where to (Feb 4, 2009)

what we already knew, british wildcats blog confirmed as a BNP front:
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/02/02/british-wildcats-exposed/


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> These allow firms to bring in their own labour when they are awarded contracts in another EU country which goes against the tradition that which ever nationalisty the firmm is that it recruits mainly from the host country that regulates labour and conditions. Short answer is the jobs don't have to be advertised full stop, the company just recruits and delivers with no questions asked.



Tradition? So nothing based on law then?

and since when has this concept been "traditional" for this type of contract, maybe this could be said if a company sets up a permanent base in another country but certainly not for temporary construction contracts. At least I have never come across it in my time on mainland Europe.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

ymu said:


> I'm not going to argue what-ifs unless there's actual evidence that the workers are being paid the same in real terms, and that IREM aren't profiting out of being landlords and caterers to their workforce.



Just as turkish bosses with contracts in ireland did with the GAMA workers. Worse than that monies that the company claimed was being paid to those workers living in on-site barracks was actually exposed as being siphoned off to dutch bank accounts. Luckily the GAMA workers themselves took the issue up (and in the process found out about the stolen money as well) - fought and won, cutting across the then growing anti-immigrant mood in Ireland

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77562


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

sihhi said:


> If you're anywhere at all near Lindsey try going along with a tray of cookies and that poster in Italian, Portuguese and English. I don't think those on strike/demonstrating (including those who have been without work for several months) would evict you- they would welcome your support. They have however evicted the BNP.
> 
> The BJFBW placards are trying to "skewer" Gordon Brown.
> 
> ...



spot on


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Fuchs66 said:


> Tradition? So nothing based on law then?



Thats right Fucks66 'the law' is completely neutral - as are the EU, as is the media, as are the politicians


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

ymu said:


> Why are you flogging this oh so dead horse quite so hard?



I'd love an answer to that question too


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...er-Station/article-666037-detail/article.html
> 
> Also some interesting comments underneath that linked article



Yep - interesting stuff. This one is from a striking Lindsey worker:

... (edited because Frogwoman has already posted this up)

Gary, lyndsey oil


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I'd love an answer to that question too


Because I've had serious questions about the stated aims of the strike. I've been trying to get answers from you for pages on why preference for 'locally skilled' labour is acceptable as a strike demand instead of jobs for all. I've also had no answer to why someone who appeared to be a local strike leader said what would get them back to work was local recruitment with European labour a 'last resort'.


----------



## rover07 (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> The strikers seem to have no problem producing placards. They could manage some in Italian saying "Strike with us brothers for jobs for all", if the will was there to do so



Saw a strikers sign in English and Italian on the news this morning.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Because I've had serious questions about the stated aims of the strike. I've been trying to get answers from you for pages on why preference for 'locally skilled' labour is acceptable as a strike demand instead of jobs for all. I've also had no answer to why someone who appeared to be a local strike leader said what would get them back to work was local recruitment with European labour a 'last resort'.



And people have taken up the understandable issue you have - again and again, fella. Eventually they give up trying reason with you given you simply ignore the replies and paste up the same accusation as though there had been no replies (the dubious - in the wake of three fair replies - video link you have re-posted at least 5 times). It seems from this that you want to prove these workers are just idiots? Admit it - this is more complicated than you are trying to make out. 

In Bloom I think it was answered your original question (the phrase you keep repeating like a mantra) very gently and honestly - demands are being carefully posed to cut across the divisive spew we all agree has had an influence over this dispute. These moods can be rapidly changed - where they exist (and remember the distorting lens of for example the bbc in all of this) - that is not to say the strikers will all decide to create the 6th Communist International overnight. What we cannot do is stand on the sidelines condemning understandable concerns - clear attacks on previously agreed union rights, work conditions and jobs.

No body is arguing the demands being put across are all 'perfect'. No body is arguing that there is not any undercurrent that needs to be cut across. The question is - "how do we cut across those negative and divisive demands?". You are a socialist - so this should also be the question you would ask first (well at least as a continuation of "how do we pose working class solutions for the demands being raised to those workers"), surely rather than "how will *I* be seen for supporting less than perfect movements" or "how can I support these people because they do not have a fully worked out answer to the problems they face in advance of my support"

As for your new found warmth for the SWP - this was their position during a recent small dispute - along similar lines -  in Ireland:




			
				By someone somewhere else who sums it up better than I could said:
			
		

> The protests were against a building company that some local builder argued was refusing to hire trade union members or local workers.
> 
> During that dispute the SWP put out leaflets which argued that "On previous developments in the area, there were agreements with the local community that a certain proportion of the workforce on the site would be local labour.The same should happen here”"
> 
> ...



One rule for one, one rule for another?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2009)

cantsin said:


> where does it attack the strikers you dodgy little toad ?



It might not attack strikers, but it ceratinly attacks the strikes and in a pretty dodgy manner that socialists of all people should reject after having thems used against them so often in disputes. It takes a few isolated incidents or unsupported reports from the hostile media and uses them to characterise the strike as a whole, to paint the motivations of the stikers as the same as those in those incidents - ignoring the repeated rejections on the line, in statements in interviews and so on of behaviour like that.



> But too of ten the focus has become foreign workers.
> Beneath the cautious statements,there is open hostility to non-British workers on the placards and shouts against foreign workers at the rallies.
> 
> This is why the filth of theNazi British National Party(BNP) have been sniff ing
> around.



The stupid thing is that they report in the next section that the BNP have been chased off and nationalist or racist demands have not got a supportive hearing. Which rather undermines the whole pointof their postion.

Anyway, the SWP are neither here nor there, i just wanted to point that out. - back in the real world the proposed deal _sounds_ like typical panicky fudge on first glance.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Any Irish posters might be a bit surprised by the SWP's line on this strike if they recall their fervent support of workers involved in a dispute in Dublin a little while ago. Have a look at the demands in leaflets and reports put out by the SWP and its electoral coalition, the People Before Profit Alliance.
> 
> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74191
> http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74406
> ...




Ha! Ha! That sums up this opportunist nonsense perfectly. Do people really think they'd have this position if they had an 'in' like the SP have? Of course not - it's a branding exercise.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I'd love an answer to that question too


I read back through the thread and frankly, it's just silly that you didn't try to answer questions put to you by Spion. 

But that aside.

Gordon Brown brought the reactionary nationalist slogan "British Jobs for British Workers" into play, in 2007.

The demand from the strikers for "local workers first" plus "union-held unemployment register" also reflects one of Brown's 2007 promises to "offer jobs to people on the unemployment register" 

I have to agree with Spion about how the above appears at an international level, and there's no reason that demands can't be refined to be inclusive of all workers. Without international solidarity, there's no way that workers can successfully oppose the neoliberal agency/contract tendencies (see CAL.ICEM and the recent demands of French strikers on 29th Jan 2009)

I doubt the strikers, who were took that slogan in the initial phases of this unofficial strike, knew that it was an old National Front Slogan from the 1970s. 

To people looking on from the continent, and indeed, to many here, that divisive slogan must have been very disheartening to see on the picket line. 

The BJFBW slogan was the antithesis of solidarity with all workers and confused the situation. But this is not the strikers fault, this is Prime Minister Brown's fault who made promises in 2007 and failed to stand by them because he could not stand by his own promises as apparently they are against laws which he signed up to. Confused? Brown's the idiot, not the striking workers.

Those reactionary sentiments are what enabled the media and Lord Mandelson (et al) to initially misrepresent the strikers concerns, and the strikers concerns are shared by continental trades unions.  

The Italian Union CGIL also was disheartened to see that nationalist sentiment.  What has been highlighted is a lack of pan-European Union solidarity and coordination. Those BJBFW misrepresented the position and could have proved disastrous to cooperative future actions. There's alot at stake here. Even when a pan-European Union cooperative agreement has been achieved, there's little to stop French company Alstom from bringing in Indian construction workers or other non-European workers, who would be outside of any European agreements, so it's absolutely essential to ensure the strikes aims are internationalist and coordinated with other Unions, else the bosses will continue this neoliberal track. 

Don't explode at me for saying this, but TBH, I don't see how Spion is saying anything different from what we've been saying, he's just saying it differently.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> it's a branding exercise.



of course swp posters are welcome to correct the rest of us if we have made any unfair assumptions as to this apparent 'contradiction'


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Thats right Fucks66 'the law' is completely neutral - as are the EU, as is the media, as are the politicians



I presume you're talking to me, at least IF the unions had got off their arses back in the early 90's and started organising better across the EU instead of being more worried about how full their own personal trough was then they might have been in a position to influence the labour laws of the EU a bit more effectively rather than act all surprised when the tide turns. Speaking of "traditions" doesn't hold a lot of weight in a court no matter how much you want it to.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I read back through the thread and frankly, it's just silly that you didn't try to answer questions put to you by Spion.
> 
> But that aside.



Not really an aside though - while the initial discussion 'is this a racist movement' i only ever posted up information - not even an opinion - you say i did not try to answer the questions - they are answered by the information posted up. i have a high-enough regard for even spion that he can work these things out for himself. plenty of people answered spion's questions directly. its hard to give replys a number of times just to have the same questions/inference and implications then posed again and again despite the counter-evidence pointed to



tangentlama said:


> I have to agree with Spion about how the above appears at an international level, and there's no reason that demands can't be refined to be inclusive of all workers. *Without international solidarity, there's no way that workers can successfully oppose the neoliberal agency/contract tendencies* (see CAL.ICEM and the recent demands of French strikers on 29th Jan 2009)



Of course, spot on - the question is how do you pose that in a manner in which those workers can begin to draw the same conclusions from their own experience



tangentlama said:


> The BJFBW slogan was the antithesis of solidarity with all workers and confused the situation. But this is not the strikers fault, this is Prime Minister Brown's fault who made promises in 2007 and failed to stand by them. Those reactionary sentiments are what enabled the media and Lord Mandelson to misrepresent the strikers aims.
> 
> The Italian Union CGIL also was disheartened to see that nationalist sentiment.  What has been highlighted is a lack of pan-European Union solidarity and coordination. Those BJBFW misrepresented the position and could have proved disastrous to cooperative future actions. There's alot at stake here. Even when a pan-European Union cooperative agreement has been achieved, there's little to stop French company Alstom from bringing in Indian construction workers or other non-European workers, who would be outside of any European agreements, so it's absolutely essential to ensure the strikes aims are internationalist and coordinated with other Unions, else the bosses will continue this neoliberal track.



Again we don't really disagree on the general points you are making. But how to we turn a mood in an internationalist direction. It can come partly from the reaction to accusations of racism - you only have to look at strikers comments - approaching other european workers is already being posed by left wing strikers to the rest but they can only do this on the basis that they are 'with' their fellow workers - on the progressive demands - already.



tangentlama said:


> Don't explode at me for saying this, but TBH, I don't see how Spion is saying anything different from what we've been saying, he's just saying it differently.



I don't explode contrary to the whimperings of those who don't like people coming back at them in the same way they right off and condemn others. He is saying one thing very differently imho - he will not support the progressive elements of this movement. He claims that is because the movement is wholey reactionary on the basis of some comments and phrasology (which he then repeats endlessly so as to 'prove' the point - at least I can only assume that is the aim?). He cuts himself off


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> The demand from the strikers for "local workers first" plus "union-held unemployment register" also reflects one of Brown's 2007 promises to "offer jobs to people on the unemployment register"



I agree with all the post actually in many ways apart from this - there is no comparison with a state and union held unemployment register. The latter is about power while the state unemployment office is all about disempowerment.

Nobody claims that the workers involved are holding some sort of advanced internationalist position - everybody here recongnises that much of the sentiment is confused and politically primitive.

But what do you expect at this point of time? Haven't you read thread after thread on this forum over the years bemoaning the state of the left and alternative ideas, while at the same time how globalisation / neo-liberalisation has disempowered and alienated much of the w/c?

The greatest political educator is _action_. There is no true substitute for this. They may start with one political position, but end up with another.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

I agree with you, Divisive Cotton!


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2009)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The greatest political educator is _action_.


Yes.

The thing is, it isn't us (ie, contributors to this thread) on this action.  We would basically agree on the way forward.  But it isn't, and condemning from the sidelines will only help the bosses.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes.
> 
> The thing is, it isn't us (ie, contributors to this thread) on this action.  We would basically agree on the way forward.  But it isn't, and condemning from the sidelines will only help the bosses.



On this thread, there has been plenty of support for the strikers and speaking openly and criticising the BJFBW thing is not condemnation from sidelines. Concerns are justifiable, and the picket realises the Brown-Labour Party BJFBW trap is being used to undermine their action in the media and alienate broader support.

Read this: http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=163.0

Handy Andy, a good chap who engaged with strikers and supports strikers does more good by talking openly about how BJFBW is perceived abroad. People are trying to act before continental unions are alienated by this strike action/demands. 

Read how it's portrayed in Spain (link from Handy Andy) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/inte...Reino/Unido/elpepiint/20090131elpepiint_3/Tes


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Concerns are justifiable


Of course.  But people _have_ condemned from the sidelines: the SWP has.  

My first post on this thread asked what had been done to involve the migrant workers.  And if Spion were to go to Lindsey with his banner saying "Join Us, Brothers" in Italian, I'd cheer him on.  But I'm not near Lincolnshire, nor likely to be, so I'm not going to sit here and say the strike _isn't_ about sub-sub-contractors undercutting pay and conditions.   It is.  Of course it is.


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> It seems from this that you want to prove these workers are just idiots? Admit it - this is more complicated than you are trying to make out.


 Sorry, that's just projection. You need to take my words at face value. 



dennisr said:


> In Bloom I think it was answered your original question


 In Bloom said in effect, 'what's wrong with favouring local labour'? Not really an answer, is it?



dennisr said:


> No body is arguing the demands being put across are all 'perfect'. No body is arguing that there is not any undercurrent that needs to be cut across. .


This is the crux. You admit the demands are 'not perfect', which looked at from the opposite direction means there is something wrong with them. All I have sought is an honest discussion of the seriously flawed demand that amounts to 'local jobs for local people' in this dispute because it needed addressing in the real world . . .



dennisr said:


> The question is - "how do we cut across those negative and divisive demands?".


 . . . by arguing against demands that favour one set of workers over the other. Of course, it's a really difficult situation. If you argued against striking on that basis and then lost you're put in a bind - do you go along with the strike or not, and I could see why anyone would. Trouble is I see no-one involved that argued against the reactionary elements of the demands and any socialist that is seen to be uncritical is tainted with the fact they failed to show clearly they were against a demand of 'local jobs for local people' and that could really bite us/them on the arse in future. BJ4BW could have spiralled out of control and that had to be very clearly and publicly opposed.



dennisr said:


> As for your new found warmth for the SWP - this was their position during a recent small dispute - along similar lines -  in Ireland:


I think they're as rotten as your lot actually  I just thought the front page was a good one


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2009)

Workers rejected the panicky potential stich up between unions/total and ACAS.


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 4, 2009)

Good.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Sorry, that's just projection.



OK, fine


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> The thing is, it's not just the nationalist sentiments of 'some of those involved' or 'cack-handed sloganeering'.
> 
> The strike has a list of demands as agreed by a mass meeting, and the only strike demand that has anything to say about who should be employed in future at the site - THE main issue here, no? - explicitly limits that to 'locally skilled' labour. Then there's the statement of the local union leader on the BBC video who was asked 'What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour."
> 
> How else am I supposed to take that other than BJ4BW?


The reference to "European labour" is about non-union workers being imported from outside, often on lower rates than local labour, for a particular job, not a generalised opposition to foreigners.  This is not an issue of migration, but of union busting.


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 4, 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/strikes-unions


> Other demonstrators held up cardboard signs reading "Workers of the world unite" and claiming that foreign workers at other sites were joining the strike in solidarity.


Any thoughts, Spion?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 4, 2009)

chilango said:


> re Unemployed Workers Union
> 
> There were a number of intiatives going on in the mid 90s around the time of the JSA. They did not fare well. The fall out is well documented on the web.



National Claiments Alliance was one.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Italian Language version of the SP Lindsey Oil Refinery leaflet can be downloaded from here:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk ( Word document )


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Italian Language version of the SP Lindsey Oil Refinery leaflet can be downloaded from here:
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk ( Word document )


Good stuff, are the SP planning to try and get that leaflet to the Italians at LOR?


----------



## goebfwai (Feb 4, 2009)

How about changing the call to "Human jobs for human workers"?  Automation, robiticisation and the rise of self-service systems in retailing is decimating the British jobs market.


----------



## chilango (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Italian Language version of the SP Lindsey Oil Refinery leaflet can be downloaded from here:
> 
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk ( Word document )



Good stuff.

Any posters/placards on the way?

Also is the Italian section of the CWI on the case? Especially in enagaging with the Left press coverage here in Italy?


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2009)

> I did lose some sympathy when one worker was interviewed and said "I cant work alongside these Portuguese and Iti's" - they have a good case if there were jobs that UK workers couldnt apply for, but if the UK workers have a problem working with non-UK workers then that is another thing altogether




The BBC editing ferrago is having some effect on 'progressive opinion'


----------



## Nigel (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> I sincerely hope so, the shit the unemployed protesters are to get under Purnell's welfare reforms which see them as 'offenders' wearing orange bibs and picking up litter, no wonder they are fearful and anxious.The question remains will any of the left, even the SP, initiate such a vehicle, the record, re welfare cuts being ignored is not promising. Their new 'youth right to work campaign, sadly doesnt mention benefits,etc.



Hopefully their campaign will be based on gaining full employment, support for people who are genuinly incapable of doing 'any' work & training and facilities for those who are challenged to get them back into a working environment.

Not supporting a self sustaining self perpetuating care industry, which worse effects are on their clients.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 4, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Hopefully their campaign will be based on gaining full employment, support for people who are genuinly incapable of doing 'any' work & training and facilities for those who are challenged to get them back into a working environment.
> 
> Not supporting a self sustaining self perpetuating care industry, which worse effects are on their clients.



Oh for fucks sake stop your stupid beef over this.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Good stuff, are the SP planning to try and get that leaflet to the Italians at LOR?



Yep, don;t know how easy they will find it though - I'll have to wait for reports. It is already being circulated among left activists in Italy as far as I know (Italian CWI did the translation) - although we will have to see what that results in. The first problem in Italy is obviously to cut across media lies. (the Italian CWI is miniscule - and spread the length of the Italian 'boot' unfortunately)


----------



## chilango (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Yep, don;t know how easy they will find it though - I'll have to wait for reports. It is already being circulated among left activists in Italy as far as I know (Italian CWI did the translation) - although we will have to see what that results in. The first problem in Italy is obviously to cut across media lies. (the Italian CWI is miniscule - and spread the length of the Italian 'boot' unfortunately)



What about the rest of the Italian Left?

Any groups that the UK left could approach?

Have to say I've only come across them once so far, usually only see the squatter types around in my part of Milan....


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

chilango said:


> What about the rest of the Italian Left?
> 
> Any groups that the UK left could approach?
> 
> Have to say I've only come across them once so far, usually only see the squatter types around in my part of Milan....



I honestly could not say mate - the CWI International Office and leading trade union members will be doing its bit in contacting individuals, groups and TUs. They have a few 'heavier' weight contacts (I could only hazard a guess as to how heavy weight they actually are... there is one sympathetic left publisher who printed a book on the practice of the CWI - a Question and Answer session - there's a link on the CWI website to the Italian language book). 

Milano - beautiful place - lucky fella


----------



## chilango (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I honestly could not say mate - the CWI International Office and leading trade union members will be doing its bit in contacting individuals, groups and TUs. They have a few 'heavier' weight contacts (I could only hazard a guess as to how heavy weight they actually are... there is one sympathetic left publisher who printed a book on the practice of the CWI - a Question and Answer session - there's a link on the CWI website to the Italian language book).
> 
> Milano - beautiful place - lucky fella





The coverage here seems to solely be that of the "racist, anti-Italian, rise of the BNP" type thing.


...course up here in a similar scenario a bunch of Scicilian labourers would almost certainly face a hostile and "racist" reaction from many...


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

CGIL are desperate to come over and talk with strikers & the Italian workers, can't be that hard to get hold of them


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

chilango said:


> :...course up here in a similar scenario a bunch of Scicilian labourers would almost certainly face a hostile and "racist" reaction from many...



There was a telling bit in recent news coverage of this dispute where the interviewer pushed a striker on the 'local jobs' aspect - desperate for a bigot soundbite - "what if the contracted in workers came from the Isle of Wight, would you still oppose this?" - the reply was "Yes" (of course...)

Here's the book: http://lottacwi.net/lotta/mitw.html
(the websites crap though :-(  )


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> CGIL are desperate to come over and talk with strikers & the Italian workers, can't be that hard to get hold of them



You would think so wouldn't you? 
You have to ask what role the union tops are playing in delaying such.


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> The reference to "European labour" is about non-union workers being imported from outside, often on lower rates than local labour, for a particular job, not a generalised opposition to foreigners.  This is not an issue of migration, but of union busting.


Thats part of it. But the response to that situation was a clear demand to favour British workers over foreigners. I don't get why you can't hold both ideas in your head at the same time.



In Bloom said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/strikes-unions
> 
> Any thoughts, Spion?


That's it. I'm 110% behind them now they have taken up Marxism. 

*joke* 

Well, it's a good thing that it's getting said, but needs to be/have been translated into practical demands

Anyway, looks like it's over now. Be interesting to see what the settlement is


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


Ah, treelover, you're back on this thread. Don't forget to answer the question that both cantsin & I asked you a few pages ago. 

What part of that article do you think attacks the strikers?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Thats part of it. But the response to that situation was a clear demand to favour British workers over foreigners. I don't get why you can't hold both ideas in your head at the same time.


No, the demand that was actually agreed upon was that locally based (not necessarily originally "local") unionised workers would be given the opportunity to apply for jobs at the site, which could easily include migrant workers who've moved to Britain.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> You would think so wouldn't you?
> You have to ask what role the union tops are playing in delaying such.



fuck the union tops,I imagine they'd be happy to respond to any invite from the strike committee or anyone else like that.


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> No, the demand that was actually agreed upon was that locally based (not necessarily originally "local") unionised workers would be given the opportunity to apply for jobs at the site, which could easily include migrant workers who've moved to Britain.


IE, not someone based in another country. Therefore 'Local jobs for local people/BJ4B(-based)W'


----------



## e19896 (Feb 4, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> Ah, treelover, you're back on this thread. Don't forget to answer the question that both cantsin & I asked you a few pages ago.
> 
> What part of that article do you think attacks the strikers?



As the late Tony Cliff put it,



> You are on a picket line and someone makes a racist remark, you have 3 choices -
> 
> 1. Storm off because you won’t stand shoulder-to-shoulder with racists, this is sectarian leftism.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

would you be opposed to workers, who were being made redundant from a company, being offered any new jobs in the same company _ahead of_ any new recruits, Spion?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

Deal reached apparently - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7868777.stm


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> would you be opposed to workers, who were being made redundant from a company, being offered any new jobs in the same company _ahead of_ any new recruits, Spion?


 Is it a scenario where there is competition between defined groups of workers for those jobs? Has the company already recruited any new workers in this hypothetical scenario?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> Deal reached apparently - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7868777.stm



The mass meeting to vote on it is on Thursday

Interesting bit here on the earlier 'deal' the strikers rejected:

"...But our correspondent said they believed the figure was too low, and rejected it. They also demanded proof that the foreign workers being brought in were on the same pay and terms and conditions as their British counterparts."...

the bigots 

And a wee bit more:
"The first offer put to the mass meeting, of 60 jobs, was a "derisory olive branch", said Unite shop steward Kenny Ward. He said the mood was resolute and the workers were "determined to achieve a victory at Lindsey because this is where the fight started". He said people had had enough of employers using "unjust laws" to "pitch one European worker against fellow European workers" in the pursuit of profit."

Even more:
"Protesters have vehemently denied the issue is about racism against the foreign workers themselves. They say it is a battle to allow British workers equal access to jobs on British construction sites. "

xenophobes...


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

aah, a quick read made it sound like the stewards had agreed the deal, on closer inspection it seems only to be the union tops that did


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Is it a scenario where there is competition between defined groups of workers for those jobs?



lets say there are more being made redundant than there are jobs on offer



> Has the company already recruited any new workers in this hypothetical scenario?


take it either way


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> lets say there are more being made redundant than there are jobs on offer
> 
> 
> take it either way


You fight to make the bosses pay for jobs for all that need them, without discrimination that could lead to divisions between workers on any grounds.

It should be an ABC of socialist politics


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> And a wee bit more:
> "The first offer put to the mass meeting, of 60 jobs, was a "derisory olive branch", said Unite shop steward Kenny Ward. He said the mood was resolute and the workers were "determined to achieve a victory at Lindsey because this is where the fight started". *He said people had had enough of employers using "unjust laws" to "pitch one European worker against fellow European workers" in the pursuit of profit."*




Racist..... Just look at the racism and xenophobia dripping from that quote!!


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

There's a lot of ladies who doth protest too much round here


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> There's a lot of ladies who doth protest too much round here



So, point out what was dodgy about that remark then oh magnificent oracle of all that is correct?!


----------



## Nigel (Feb 4, 2009)

Plenty of wildcat strikes around the country in support. 
http://www.socialist.net/wilcat-strikes.britain.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7867617.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7866614.stm


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> You fight to make the bosses pay for jobs for all that need them, without discrimination that could lead to divisions between workers on any grounds.
> 
> It should be an ABC of socialist politics



it is. You are supporting the right of redundant workers to be first in line for any such new jobs.  Which is pretty much what the strike is over. Sub-contracting is the enemy, not italians


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> You are supporting the right of redundant workers to be first in line for any such new jobs.


No I'm not. I'm explicitly trying to avoid anyone being first or second in line so that divisions do not arise between workers


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

you dont think redundant workers should get any priority over anyone else?

Thats decades of TUism down the drain


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> Which is pretty much what the strike is over. Sub-contracting is the enemy, not italians


So all the BJ4BW/'Put UK workers first' placards didn't exist? The demand that employment go to 'locally skilled' labour did not exist? The video interview of strikers demanding that European labour be used as a last resort did not exist?

Remarkable. Truly remarkable


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> you dont think redundant workers should get any priority over anyone else?
> 
> Thats decades of TUism down the drain


I think that the bosses should be made to pay for jobs for all that need them


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

wriggle wriggle.

That IS what the strike is over, sub-contracting.

You've ignored everyone elses largely patient response to you, and just keep posting and reposting the same thing, even tho the point has been answered over and over.

It's not a very honest way of debating your point.  You're not prepared to listen to anyone else, you just want to shout RACIST, even tho their is sweet fa evidence of racism.

I'm not gonna waste another moment pretending to argue with you on this, you've got your fingers far too far down in your ears and can't hear anything other than what you want to hear.

Bye


----------



## where to (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Anyway, looks like it's over now.



Chapter 1 may be.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Racist..... Just look at the racism and xenophobia dripping from that quote!!



If only those thick working class types understood every nuance, dot, comma and underline of socialist internationalism

*sighs* - *goes to weep in corner*


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> you just want to shout RACIST, even tho their is sweet fa evidence of racism.


Absolute dishonest crap. I've not called anyone a racist on this thread. I have said that there are nationalist demands at the heart of the strike's aims, and that's quite a different thing


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> If only those thick working class types understood every nuance, dot, comma and underline of socialist internationalism
> 
> *sighs* - *goes to weep in corner*


You pair are some double act. Neither could speak a straight word if you tried


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Absolute dishonest crap. I've not called anyone a racist on this thread. I have said that there are nationalist demands at the heart of the strike's aims, and that's quite a different thing



You have said you would not support those strikers because of their racist slogans. You have repeatedlty tried to present them as racists (along with the entire news media in the uk and apparently across europe) - that's a definate thing that puts you on a definate side. 

Am I being dishonest with this statement?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> You pair are some double act. Neither could speak a straight word if you tried



ahh, the voice of 'honesty' and 'reason'

*sighs*


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Absolute dishonest crap. I've not called anyone a racist on this thread. I have said that there are nationalist demands at the heart of the strike's aims, and that's quite a different thing


they always do this wind up bullshit, no point in trying tro have an honest debate.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> they always do this wind up bullshit, no point in trying tro have an honest debate.



another 'voice of truth' cutting through the crap and lies of the entire boss media set-up

oh, hold on...


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> You have said you would not support those strikers because of their racist slogans. You have repeatedlty tried to present them as racists (along with the entire news media in the uk and apparently across europe) - that's a definate thing that puts you on a definate side.
> 
> Am I being dishonest with this statement?


Totally dishonet. I have never said they were racist. Find me a single example of where I did. I have patiently explained why key demands of the strikers aim at favouring British workers over others and I have clearly said I support them fighting against job losses and for more jobs to be created - but not to exclude other nationalities from work.

Socialists should tell the truth. I'm appalled at the self delusion that's gone on here


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> another 'voice of truth' cutting through the crap and lies of the entire boss media set-up
> 
> oh, hold on...


Yet another snidey comment. You really do have a problem with honesty


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> another 'voice of truth' cutting through the crap and lies of the entire boss media set-up
> 
> oh, hold on...


said barely anyting you lying fuckwit.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Socialists should tell the truth. I'm appalled at the self delusion that's gone on here



Of course, you don't do 'snidey' do you?

I am sure 'the workers' will eventually thank you for being the beacon of the 'truth' and support in struggle that you are


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> said barely anyting you lying fuckwit.



And there was was me thinking you said:



ResistanceMP3 said:


> they always do this wind up bullshit, no point in trying tro have an honest debate.



must have been some other "Resistance" (sic) MP3

although full credit for saying nothing when it mattered

tithead


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> It's not a very honest way of debating your point.  You're not prepared to listen to anyone else, you just want to shout RACIST, even tho their is sweet fa evidence of racism.


Sorry, but Spion hasn't shouted 'racist' at all. I don't understand why you and dennisr keep saying he did.


----------



## JimW (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> I have patiently explained...



 The epitome of the fake leftist hard liberal meeting the actual working class.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> they always do this wind up bullshit, no point in trying tro have an honest debate.



so completely unlike you're squirming and wriggling, mutleys desperate digging for evidence of racism even when its unconnected to the strike, and MC2.5's posting up glove puppets!

You total hypocrite.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> You have said you would not support those strikers because of their racist slogans. You have repeatedlty tried to present them as racists (along with the entire news media in the uk and apparently across europe) - that's a definate thing that puts you on a definate side.
> 
> Am I being dishonest with this statement?



Yes, sorry, but that's not an honest assessment of what Spion said.


----------



## where to (Feb 4, 2009)

some Euro MEPs have written some joint statement:
http://www.amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=9984



> Today MEPs from UK, Germany and Italy, representing Socialists, Greens and European Left Groups* threatened to veto this year's incoming European Commission.*
> 
> Glyn Ford (Labour, SW England) said: "The situation is clear, if we are to end 'social dumping' within Europe we must change the law. British and other European workers should not have to compete within factories and companies with those forced to work for lower wages and in poorer conditions".
> 
> ...



whatever vetoing the European Commission would mean in practice


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Sorry, but Spion hasn't shouted 'racist' at all. I don't understand why you and dennisr keep saying he did.



him and his nuances

the workers he refused to support because of their 'reactionary, zenophobic etc etc demands' were not actually 'racist' then - he was simply implying (repeatedly) that they were non-racist folk whom he could not support?

are you saying he was only implying they were 'reactionary' or 'zenophobic' or whatever else was implied - you can delete as appropriate - so thats OK?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Sorry, but Spion hasn't shouted 'racist' at all. I don't understand why you and dennisr keep saying he did.



substitute nationalism if you like, makes little odds. Spion has decided his position on the basis of some placards that are no longer used, and one news clip - despite the explicit and obvious bias of the beeb.  Either way, he isn't prepared to listen to any counter-argument


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> mutleys desperate digging for evidence of racism



remember the horror that is facebook - like germany 33 all over again but this time online!!

doom ... gloom ... shock ... horror


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

where to said:


> whatever vetoing the European Commission would mean in practice



Hello some of our Euro representatives have woken up


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> And there was was me thinking you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





dennisr said:


> another 'voice of truth' cutting through the crap and lies of the entire boss media set-up
> 
> oh, hold on...



I have barely said anything about the bosses media set-up lies etc.

I did say you were a wind up bullshitter,  and U immediately proved it by twisting my post.  Well done!.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 4, 2009)

there's certianly some evidence of racism/xenophobia among some - SOME - of the strikers, which should be extra reason for the left to support the strike, because otherwise the bnp are going to fill that vaccuum and more left leaning workers will find themselves pretty isolated. 

for fucks sake, not everyone knows as much about politics as we do, (which is not much tbf) - not all of them are likely to have spent time debating the finer points of socialism, like most people they probably have their views but are apolitical, some are probably mildly prejudiced, but thats hardly a reason to cry racism at all of the strikers and push them into the arms of the fash ..


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> substitute nationalism if you like, makes little odds. Spion has decided his position on the basis of some placards that are no longer used, and one news clip - despite the explicit and obvious bias of the beeb.  Either way, he isn't prepared to listen to any counter-argument


You forgot to mention the demand for 'locally skilled' labour to be employed that formed part of the strikers demands. You try to smear as useless the actual words of the striker who said that Euopean labour should be used as a last resort because they were on the BBC, tho clearly unedited.

I never used to worry about the possibility of Stalinism if we had a revolution here. But the 1984-like denial of plain facts makes me think I was wrong


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> so completely unlike you're squirming and wriggling, mutleys desperate digging for evidence of racism even when its unconnected to the strike, and MC2.5's posting up glove puppets!
> 
> You total hypocrite.



WTF are you on?  Can I have some?


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> thats hardly a reason to cry racism at all of the strikers and push them into the arms of the fash ..


No one has, Froggy. And I've clearly stated that the strikers have to be engaged with. But that doesn't mean I'll support a strike that has reactionary employment practices as a key aim.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> there's certianly some evidence of racism/xenophobia among some - SOME - of the strikers, which should be extra reason for the left to support the strike, because otherwise the bnp are going to fill that vaccuum and more left leaning workers will find themselves pretty isolated.


racism is there why?

Edited the quote to make the question clearer, a hopefully.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> substitute nationalism if you like, makes little odds. Spion has decided his position on the basis of some placards that are no longer used, and one news clip - despite the explicit and obvious bias of the beeb.  Either way, he isn't prepared to listen to any counter-argument



Sorry, but you're not making sense because he never said 'racism' and quite a few people discussed the connotations and origins here on this thread very openly and without any malice at all. 

I think you've misunderstood what he was saying based on that news clip which featured "Kenny", which I'm thinking was Kenny the Unite Steward. If I remember rightly, that was the person that Spion quoted earlier. 

I think you and dennisr and Spion have had a misunderstanding and my belief is that you're all wanting the same thing. Just a misunderstanding. Read back and I'm sure it will clear itself up. 

You're on the same side, not the opposite side


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> No one has, Froggy. And I've clearly stated that the strikers have to be engaged with. But that doesn't mean I'll support a strike that has reactionary employment practices as a key aim.



But then you were never going to do the ABCs of 'engaging with them' anyway were you? (even if we ignore somewhat dubious approach you were planning to take to - theoretically - engage them)

Come on you keep shouting 'dishonest' 

The reality is active working class socialists did 'engage' those strikers - you simply condemned both the strikers and those trying to 'engage' them from the start


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> racism is there why?



No, not racism! Possibly an insular way of looking at the situation, for which I would blame 
a) the Govt, esp. Prime Minister Brown and his recycled fash-slogan from the NF (BJFBW) 
b) Union 'Tops' for, since they're paid dues to look at the bigger picture and inform the rank and file what's going on in the wider world and make solidarity with other unions across Europe, nay, the World, for globalisation has been around for over 100 years. 

We've got to look at it from the bottom-up, i.e. from our position as workers.
We've got to consider that it's only very recently that information about the world has been available to access to all. 

Cars increased mobility and contact with other workers around the country.
Internet increases the amount of info available to us.

Before cars/internet and airtravel, information would be filtered from the top-down to workers, and workers would only be told what the Union leaders/bosses wanted them to know!. 

Today, we're all better informed (thankfully) so we know when construction workers are striking in India, France, Germany, S.A., Brazil, etc and we know why they're striking!
We can find out which unions are involved in contract/agency disputes and work together. Couldn't do that very easily 30 or 40 years ago!


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> But then you were never going to do the ABCs of 'engaging with them' anyway were you? (even if we ignore somewhat dubious approach you were planning to take to - theoretically - engage them)
> 
> Come on you keep shouting 'dishonest'
> 
> The reality is active working class socialists did 'engage' those strikers - you simply condemned both the strikers and those trying to 'engage' them from the start



eh? are we reading the same thread?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> You're on the same side, not the opposite side


sadly, we're not.

He opposes the strike, explicitly, and I support it, explicitly.

he thinks its a 'little englander' strike, I dont.

Kinda different, really.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I think you and dennisr and Spion have had a misunderstanding and my belief is that you're all wanting the same thing. Just a misunderstanding. Read back and I'm sure it will clear itself up.
> 
> You're on the same side, not the opposite side



I honestly cant see it as just a misunderstanding, tangent - there is a key difference behind the disagreements going on here. Yes, formally, we all want a united working class fighting to improve the position of each other and all workers. We are all opposed to racist, zenophobic and all forms of division between people. We can all see the dangers on some of the backward slogans being initially raised. We all formally share a lot of basic 'ideas and theories' in common - where we differ completely is how to apply them.

How we think a solution to those divisions (and a cutting across of backward demands) can be achieved - engaging that group of people in a way that makes those theories relevant - that point is where we take entirely different roads. That is the point were we have nowt in common.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> /and MC2.5's posting up glove puppets!


 
You must have been on some hallucinogenic substance to infer what you have inferred from my posting of an image of a_ Sooty_ glove puppet belboid.

ffs,  it was my last post of the night. Never seen Sooty? He alway's signed off with "tatty bye everybody, tatty bye."


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> eh? are we reading the same thread?



Spions position was clear enough - he said he opposed the strike. If the socialists on the ground had arrived with a similar view they would have no hope whatsoever of being able to cut across the very elements of this movement he opposes.

In practice - regardless of platitudes about 'engaging' - he put himself on the other side of the line and cut himself off from the very thing he wanted to engage (engage in theory that is...)

yep, i think we are reading the same thread


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

I see Jerry Hicks is on Newsnight tonight talking about the current unofficial strike wave.

.....and a vid of Waterford workers.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

MC5 said:


> You must have been on some hallucinogenic substance to infer what you have inferred from my posting of an image of a_ Sooty_ glove puppet belboid.


naah, just going of yours and your comrades' repetition of the bosses arguments.  That was before you'd read the new Socialist Worker of course, whereupon your views suddenly changed!



> ffs,  it was my last post of the night. Never seen Sooty? He alway's signed off with "tatty bye everybody, tatty bye."



I bow to your knowledge of old children's tv programmes.  I always thought Sooty was shit meself.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> naah, just going of yours and your comrades' repetition of the bosses arguments. That was before you'd read the new Socialist Worker of course, whereupon your views suddenly changed!
> 
> 
> 
> I bow to your knowledge of old children's tv programmes. I always thought Sooty was shit meself.


 
Good live with Harry. 

You might want to check this post. before you come out with anymore idiocy?


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

MC5 said:


> You might want to check this post. before you come out with anymore idiocy?



written after this weeks SW came out


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> written after this weeks SW came out


 
But I'm supporting the strikers and they're humming and harring about it. 

And "Izzy wizzy, let's get busy!" is not the headline either.


----------



## snadge (Feb 4, 2009)

MC5 said:


> But I'm supporting the strikers and they're humming and harring about it.
> 
> And "Izzy wizzy, let's get busy!" is not the headline either.



you didn't though.

Do you always need to check with your mates when you do anything?

and what is spion's game? Is he a boss?


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

snadge said:


> you didn't though.
> 
> Do you always need to check with your mates when you do anything?
> 
> and what is spion's game? Is he a boss?


 
Personally, I think Spions over thinking it on the issue of nationalism and it's influence here, but I concur with his comments about the BjfBw slogan.

I also think it very unlikely Spion's a "boss".

You a peasant? 

If you find a post where I've come out against this strike at anytime you win the glove puppet. Sweeps his mate.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> written after this weeks SW came out



What you were saying may not be exactly true, but let's pretend it is.

What you're saying is he held an opinion, learned some new facts, and then changed that opinion?  How shocking!


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

or to put it another way:

he held an opinion, was told it wasn't the right one, and 'corrected' it 

''


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> or to put it another way:
> 
> he held an opinion, was told it wasn't the right one, and 'corrected' it
> 
> ''


 

Yeah,  don't tell me? I was corrected by _Sooty_.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> or to put it another way:
> 
> he held an opinion, was told it wasn't the right one, and 'corrected' it
> 
> ''


 "trotbot! trotbot! trotbot! trotbot! trotbot! "

for me that betrays your lazy slovenly mind.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

that's because you have to have someone else do your thinking for you tho, isn't it.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> that's because you have to have someone else do your thinking for you tho, isn't it.


 no that's because you have to lie about people, and even when that lie is shown to be ridiculous, you wriggle and twist to make another equally vacuous bullshit point.

Come on tell us about your conspiracy theory about sock puppets.


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

'shown'? You have done no such thing. All you and tweedledumber have done is come along and chuck a few insults about, saying next top nothing of any use about the strike.

Oh, and you should look up what 'conspiracy theory' actually means if you are going to try and use the phrase in a sentence.

Or you could just say something about the actual thread topic.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> 'shown'? You have done no such thing. All you and tweedledumber have done is come along and chuck a few insults about, saying next top nothing of any use about the strike.
> 
> Or you could just say something about the actual thread topic.


 
Oh, the fucking irony. 

I've already made my position clear, what more is there to say?


----------



## snadge (Feb 4, 2009)

Unless you trot twats have anything worthwhile to add, shut the fuck up.....


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

snadge said:


> Unless you trot twats have anything worthwhile to add, shut the fuck up.....


 
I indicated that it could be be worthwhile for you to back-up your claim that I was not supporting the strike, or have you yourself shut the fuck up?


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2009)

with the deal arranged at Lindsey, it sure blows a hole in Brown's and Nl's 'flexible labour market', now hopefully other workers will take a close look at T&C and the minimum wage, etc.


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2009)

anyway, back to gaza and palestine, anti-semitism, now


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/03/venezuela-jews-chavez-synagogue-vandalised


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Its incredible how quickly some of the Left and plenty of liberals have identified racism, xenophobia amongst the strikers, almost as if they expected it from the working class!




well thats typical white middle class attitudes and part of the governments stragdey to undermine the striker imo   



treelover said:


> then again, at least they are discussing it, indymedia has largely ignored it, what a joke it is since FTP became its guru!



who or what is FTP?


----------



## treelover (Feb 4, 2009)

Free The Peeps, ex urbanite


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

tangentlama said:


>


 muppet  .. and don't fuck about with qoutes ..


----------



## belboid (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> anyway, back to gaza and palestine, anti-semitism, now
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/03/venezuela-jews-chavez-synagogue-vandalised



stop trying to derail your own thread ya daft twat


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> No I'm not. I'm explicitly trying to avoid anyone being first or second in line so that divisions do not arise between workers


 so on what basis SHOULD jobs be allocated? 

- at the moment allocation is by the neo lib eral companies involved .. and they recruit globally 

- the unions/locals are demanding union input and local recruitment 

so what PRACTICALLY do you propose???

-that ALL jobs in this country are advertised from Derry to Donetsk? 

-that there should be a qouta of non UK citizens in all jobs/ workplaces to be 'fair' and internationalist and non divisive??

 your position practically makes NO sense


----------



## Spion (Feb 4, 2009)

dennisr said:


> - engaging that group of people in a way that makes those theories relevant -


With that in mind I'm looking forward now to assessing:

a) the results of the strike, how they match up to the strikers' demands and how those compare to what socialists should/did argue for in such a case. I'll get onto this myself in the next day or two.
b) the effectiveness of the Socialist Party's presence at the heart of the dispute. Perhaps you could kick us off there with an explanation of what the SP argued for on the strike cttee, which arguments it won and which it lost. Which of the strike's demands were the SP's and which did it try to change and fail?

I'm keen to hear how the SP 'made those theories relevant'.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> there's certianly some evidence of racism/xenophobia among some - SOME - of the strikers, which should be extra reason for the left to support the strike, because otherwise the bnp are going to fill that vaccuum and more left leaning workers will find themselves pretty isolated.
> 
> for fucks sake, not everyone knows as much about politics as we do, (which is not much tbf) - not all of them are likely to have spent time debating the finer points of socialism, like most people they probably have their views but are apolitical, some are probably mildly prejudiced, but thats hardly a reason to cry racism at all of the strikers and push them into the arms of the fash ..


 spot on


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> Free The Peeps, ex urbanite



Free The Peeps  thanks TL dear lord and here i was thinking this issue had started to get people to talk about the time bomb the race to the bottom is creating still i have only been on indymedia once and it was pretty obvious that there concept of people is basically borgy borgy


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

belboid said:


> or to put it another way:
> 
> he held an opinion, was told it wasn't the right one, and 'corrected' it
> 
> ''


 BB .. MC5 clearly came out, yesterday,  in clear support of the strike and against the position of the swp  

( 5 days late but better late than never .. he always said he was thinking about it .. spion clearly opposes  )


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover said:


> with the deal arranged at Lindsey, it sure blows a hole in Brown's and Nl's 'flexible labour market', now hopefully other workers will take a close look at T&C and the minimum wage, etc.


 i would like to think it can be generalised into an attack on all the neo liberal Uk and EU labour changes of the last few years


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> there's certianly some evidence of racism/xenophobia among some - SOME - of the strikers, which should be extra reason for the left to support the strike, because otherwise the bnp are going to fill that vaccuum and more left leaning workers will find themselves pretty isolated.
> ..



well when you look around urban these days are you really suprised that left leaning workers might find themselves isolated ? 



frogwoman said:


> for fucks sake, not everyone knows as much about politics as we do, (which is not much tbf) - not all of them are likely to have spent time debating the finer points of socialism, like most people they probably have their views but are apolitical, some are probably mildly prejudiced, but thats hardly a reason to cry racism at all of the strikers and push them into the arms of the fash ..



exactly so insecure middleclass galloway wannabes take note


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 4, 2009)

treelover, you seem quite reluctant to address uncomfortable questions..

I'll repeat again:



treelover said:


> Front page of Socialist worker attacks the strikers, wonder how many that will sell this week
> 
> http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/graphics/2009/2137/issue2137.pdf


Don't forget to answer the question that both cantsin & I asked you a few pages ago. 

What part of that article do you think attacks the strikers?

If you can't answer this time I'll just assume you either didn't read the article or assumed that no-one here would ...


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> BB .. MC5 clearly came out, yesterday, in clear support of the strike and against the position of the swp
> 
> ( 5 days late but better late than never .. he always said he was thinking about it .. spion clearly opposes )


 
Get a grip. 

It's not as though anyone involved in the strike (anyone at all even) gives a fuck about what is thought and said here, despite brassicritique thinking otherwise.


----------



## Knotted (Feb 4, 2009)

Just like to say, I've been falling the strike and the thread but I haven't much to add. Others have said what I would say much better than I would have. Its terrible to see unemployed workers being overlooked by tight-arsed management and its great to see an organised response. Its gone better than I could have hoped.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> treelover, you seem quite reluctant to address uncomfortable questions..
> 
> I'll repeat again:
> 
> ...



1) the article assumes the strike is nationalist/racist when it is not

2) it brings in, idiotically, Mosley and the NF forcing asian out of jobs when these things are almost totally irrelevent 

3)it says there has been an attempt to play the race card .. there has NOT 

4) it says 'but what is less clear is why the unions .. .. have focused their attention on foreign workers..'  when this is simply NOT true!!! and then responds to this false story!!

5) it says workers should demand equal wages etc .. as if they are NOT .. when clearly they are 

so all in all the SWP have dishonestly created a lie of this dispute and then responded with their crass cliched anti racism when it is entirely unneccessary 

what these workers in the first major anti neo liberal dispute need is simple support at this stage ..

 the SWP position is a fucking disgrace


----------



## snadge (Feb 4, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the SWP position is a fucking disgrace



agreed.

They were trying to collect political gain and it has blown up in their faces, typical MC swappie tactics


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 4, 2009)

I didn't ask you, but thanks for your input. I disagree with most of your points anyway as I'm sure will anyone who reads it without twisting the words to suite their own little games.


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Get a grip.
> 
> It's not as though anyone involved in the strike (anyone at all even) gives a fuck about what is thought and said here, despite brassicritique thinking otherwise.



Actually the issue the strike has raised has gone beyond the strike and you know that wannabe political movers and shakers visist these boards you donkey shite still thats all you ever do is attack non middle class posters as per usual


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

snadge said:


> agreed.
> 
> They were trying to collect political gain and it has blown up in their faces, typical MC swappie tactics



no suprise there then looking around the snobish menatality on these boards


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 4, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> I didn't ask you, but thanks for your input. I disagree with most of your points anyway as I'm sure will anyone who reads it without twisting the words to suite their own little games.


 i honestly answered your questions and your reply with snide comment .. IF you disagree with what i wrote please say why


----------



## brasicritique (Feb 4, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> i honestly answered your questions and your reply with snide comment .. IF you disagree with what i wrote please say why



yes you answered posters questions however with regards to his other point poor innocent durruti2


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 4, 2009)

None of your points actually address the question I asked. 



> 1) the article assumes the strike is nationalist/racist when it is not


 It does not.


> 2) it brings in, idiotically, Mosley and the NF forcing asian out of jobs when these things are almost totally irrelevent


Not irrelevant, just pointing out that the slogan used by Brown was also used by some pretty dodgy characters.


> 3)it says there has been an attempt to play the race card .. there has NOT


This is clearly a reference to the paragraph above and not aimed at the strikers.


> 4) it says 'but what is less clear is why the unions .. .. have focused their attention on foreign workers..'  when this is simply NOT true!!! and then responds to this false story!!


The article is somewhat unclear here as it contradicts itself a few paragraphs down. Still, this is not an "attack" on the strikers.


> 5) it says workers should demand equal wages etc .. as if they are NOT .. when clearly they are


Just because they're saying that workers should demand this, the implication that they are not is only in your mind.

Seems that you just want to see what you want to so you can witter on about the SWP. I read the article as a way of moving the debate away from "British Jobs for British Workers", which many can see the downsides of, on to a more concrete footing of the bosses fucking over all the workers regardless of nationality. It managed to do this without attacking the workers as far as I could tell.

... I'd still like to hear treelovers response to the question posed ... but he/she seems to somewhat disappear whenever I post it up again. 

e2a: I'm not some kind of SWP fan, but I read the article and felt that treelover's posting of was unrepresentative of my reading of the same article - hence why I asked him to clarify.


----------



## badco (Feb 4, 2009)

I heard on the news that the union had advised strikers to return back to work after 100 jobs were to be offered to British workers


Now what were these protests about again???


----------



## badco (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> Ifighting against job losses and for more jobs to be created - but not to exclude other nationalities from work.



Oh stop lying


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

brasicritique said:


> Actually the issue the strike has raised has gone beyond the strike and you know that wannabe political movers and shakers visist these boards you donkey shite still thats all you ever do is attack non middle class posters as per usual


 
aww, did dums.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 4, 2009)

badco said:


> I heard on the news that the union had advised strikers to return back to work after 100 jobs were to be offered to British workers
> 
> 
> Now what were these protests about again???


 
The employers taking the piss.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 4, 2009)

Spion said:


> The thing is, it's not just the nationalist sentiments of 'some of those involved' or 'cack-handed sloganeering'.
> 
> The strike has a list of demands as agreed by a mass meeting, and the only strike demand that has anything to say about who should be employed in future at the site - THE main issue here, no? - explicitly limits that to 'locally skilled' labour. Then there's the statement of the local union leader* on the BBC video who was asked 'What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour."
> 
> ...



Wanted to post this, due to misrepresentation of Spion's stance.

Plus, if the Kenny in that BBC interview, is Kenny Ward the Unite shop steward, then he's successfully managed to move on from the LJFLW stance and encapsulate the real cause of the redundancies and sub-sub-contract undercutting in his latest speech, which means these guys can stand a real chance of changing the situation both here in UK and in the rest of Europe. 

I'm sure now that other Unions in Europe won't find this refined position 'Ugly' as the CGIL initially did, and still have hope for a cross-europe, multi-Union solidarity to confront these issues full-on, because this is only a small victory, and the beginning of a long fight to change working practices of these contract/agencies.


----------



## elbows (Feb 4, 2009)

So does the fact that wildcat strikes spread and seem to have gotten some sort of result, change the balance of power in this country a little?

Was capital & friends very happy with the anti-union anti-strike laws that have ben brought in over the decades, but are now facing up to the idea that the laws might be no barrier to this sort of application of power by workers?

Or do these wildcat strikes make little difference to that sort of thing? Im not very clued up about union & strike laws and how much they were successful at neutering worker power in the last decade or 2, so I dont know if the present action has set any precedents.

Also do the new industry code of conduct things that the government have been going on about today, seem to be any good?


----------



## badco (Feb 4, 2009)

MC5 said:


> The employers taking the piss.



I thought the gist of this thread was that the strikes were about the rights of the foreign workers i.e not receiving equall pay etc and not about the jobs been allocated,or not, to British workers

I'm confused


----------



## ymu (Feb 4, 2009)

One of the Portuguese workers was interviewed on BBC News just now. He reckons they were being paid around 1000 euro/month less than British workers.

Now, what was that strike about again?


----------



## badco (Feb 4, 2009)

ymu said:


> Now, what was that strike about again?



Well due to the resolution of the strike it would seem it was about British workers not getting British jobs


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

elbows said:


> So does the fact that wildcat strikes spread and seem to have gotten some sort of result, change the balance of power in this country a little?
> 
> Was capital & friends very happy with the anti-union anti-strike laws that have ben brought in over the decades, but are now facing up to the idea that the laws might be no barrier to this sort of application of power by workers?
> 
> ...



There's a mass meeting between the Union and the unofficial strikers first, and then the details of the agreement reached through ACAS between Union officials and TOTAL tomorrow morning (5 Feb) at 7:30 am and will recommend a return to work. 
http://www.processengineering.co.uk/Articles/309894/Refinery+strike+spreads+across+UK.htm

Whether the unofficial strikers accept the agreement is another matter altogether.

Has the unofficial strike achieved anything? Yes, I think it has. 

It's brought out into the open, the BNP's cynical hijacking of workers' valid woes and enabled the rank and file to openly march the c*nts off the picket line and move away from the trap which Prime Minister Brown set back in September 2007 with his repeating of the NF slogan BJFBW and highlighted once again how Brown's ideas are unworkable. 

It's brought the situation here, however cackhandedly at first, to the attention of the CGIL and highlighted a need for UK Unions to work openly with other European TU's and achieve some solidarity of purpose, since the problem with contract/agencies is felt in all states across the European Union (and beyond). 

It's brought to everyone's attention (once the BJFBW/'foreign labour' bind has been moved away from) that there are some serious problems re. wages/conditions for contract/agency construction employers across European Union and also globally.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2009)

National strike on the 27th feb apparently. I just looked on the facebook group and Richard Barnbrook appears to be one the list of members of the group, not siure what that means tho if anything.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 5, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> National strike on the 27th feb apparently. I just looked on the facebook group and Richard Barnbrook appears to be one the list of members of the group, not siure what that means tho if anything.



All the posters on the Facebook site are fash backed or fash supporting.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> All the posters on the Facebook site are fash backed or fash supporting.



Yeah i gathered that mate from a cursory look at the page.  

i dunno what to think about it - what do you reckon can practically be done?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 5, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah i gathered that mate from a cursory look at the page.
> 
> i dunno what to think about it - what do you reckon can practically be done?



Well there's a few people I know on it, they're deffo not fash. 

Has there been an offical call for a strike on that day or is it the far-right trying it on?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 5, 2009)

kyser_soze said:


> Not really, it's where the notion of Europe as a set of separate countries comes into play. This kind of migratory labour is commonplace in the US, because it's seen as a single entity by it's populace. Legally these Italian workers are identical to UK labour - they _are not foreigners_ - they're just from a different state in Europe who speak a different language. As such this in a bizarre way is saying that they are just workers same as the Brits.
> 
> This is the essential problem that I've noticed with union response to European labour, going back to the 1990s and the first wave of recruitment agencies across EU/Eastern Europe but no unions out there. This desire to still see the EU as completely separate nations is bollocks, and it's this short sightedness which is catching up with people. The irony being that as cap globalises, it should also be _easier_ to attain the kind of internationalism that any form of workers' struggle requires and yet, despite this being leftist doctrine it's been a completely missed opportunity for 20 years, and you're now left with pitiful economic nationalism and these tired arguments about how wanting to protect local jobs from 'foreigners' from Europe, when their legal status effectively makes them no different from 'local' workers...



This sums it up for me. And the logical conclusion ought to be for EU unions to if not merge, at the very least form very close links and agree to reciprocal arrangements. 

The British workers lose their jobs, the Portuguese workers are paid a low wage, and the employers are laughing. Some people are going to do very well out of this recession.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well there's a few people I know on it, they're deffo not fash.
> 
> Has there been an offical call for a strike on that day or is it the far-right trying it on?



I don't know 

do you know anything about it? what do the people you know who are on it say? 

i'm not assuming anything about it like i said, ... i haven't had anything more than a cursory look tbh


----------



## where to (Feb 5, 2009)

ive been all over the web tonight and only seen reference to it on the facebook page and the BNP front blog british wildcats.

sounds like a loady shite tbh.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 5, 2009)

ymu said:


> One of the Portuguese workers was interviewed on BBC News just now. He reckons they were being paid around 1000 euro/month less than British workers.
> 
> Now, what was that strike about again?



Does anyone have a video of this? What news bulletin was it on?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Well there's a few people I know on it, they're deffo not fash.
> 
> Has there been an offical call for a strike on that day or is it the far-right trying it on?



Here's a facebook group calling for national strike: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47415248166. Some nationalist links but not to Bee En Pee. 
Reckon there might be a link to 'English Democrats' supporters who are English nationalists seeking devolvement from Britain in the same manner as Scotland and Wales, as well as being Eurosceptics. 

Someone appeared in bearfacts to post a link to the fb group calling for national strike
http://www.bearfacts.co.uk/Forum/index.php?topic=337.0

The BJFBW facebook group is actively deleting threads/some posts from Bee En Pee members. 

I think the creator of the fb group calling for national strike says he's not a Bee En Pee member but then doesn't give the name of which party he supports (post 19) http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?u...start=0&hash=f3bfa4c59ddae286d5a78ba457186f3a so I reckon he's an English Democrats party member.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> With that in mind I'm looking forward now to assessing:
> 
> a) the results of the strike, how they match up to the strikers' demands and how those compare to what socialists should/did argue for in such a case. I'll get onto this myself in the next day or two.
> b) the effectiveness of the Socialist Party's presence at the heart of the dispute. Perhaps you could kick us off there with an explanation of what the SP argued for on the strike cttee, which arguments it won and which it lost. Which of the strike's demands were the SP's and which did it try to change and fail?
> ...



Your arrogance knows no bounds, does it? First you completely misread the nature of the strike. You ignored every point made that did not fit in with your ready-made black/white view. Then you completely misread the actions of those involved so you opposed the strike, and now - irony of ironies you demand that we assess our role and report to you!! - fuck yourself fella. You haven't got a leg to stand on - You sided with the enemies - its simply a releif you could only manage to do that much on bulletin board (so much for 'engaging the workers'). You stick to tail-ending the bosses and their kept press and your continued internet-based 'activity'.

The clear position of the SP is online at the following address:

Lindsey refinery: workers show their strength
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6851

Firm strike leadership gains results
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6852

History of the oil refinery action: Organising real trade unionism
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6853

Staythorpe power station: "It's all about money"
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6855


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2009)

ymu said:


> One of the Portuguese workers was interviewed on BBC News just now. He reckons they were being paid around 1000 euro/month less than British workers.
> 
> Now, what was that strike about again?



I've had someone else confirm they saw this as well, and the 1000 euros figure. A 'behind the scenes' investigation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2009)

No surprise there, then.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2009)

I see they've voted to go back:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7871657.stm


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2009)

> The deal, negotiated by the union, provides 102 new jobs for British workers* in addition *to the posts awarded to an Italian company.
> 
> *No foreign workers are expected to lose their posts* at Total's oil refinery.



So those saying that they won't support the strikes because a victory could only end up in foreign workers being sacked - oh dear.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2009)

Indeed.


----------



## ymu (Feb 5, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I've had someone else confirm they saw this as well, and the 1000 euros figure. A 'behind the scenes' investigation.


Cheers.

Nigel, I thought it was on the BBC News at Ten but I can't see the piece on iPlayer. Pretty sure it was a current affairs programme latish yesterday evening, not long before I posted, but I don't think it was Newsnight. I don't have charge of the remote in our house, so I'm not always sure what I'm watching.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 5, 2009)

So to sum up, The British Left, and some Anarchist:

The English working class finds itself discriminated against, and only at this point are the people of England allowed to say, "Unfair", without being called racists. Read 

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/a-racist-strike/

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/action-against-classism/

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/refinery-strike-class-not-country-is-it-over/



> There’s no need for the Left to tie itself in circles – certainly not for those of us who never abandoned class politics in the first place. It might pose problems however for New Labour and their fellow travellers who are committed to the EU project and the international solidarity of capital it promotes. Of course things are never clear cut – some of the British refinery workers may harbour – or even voice – racist attitudes, and doubtless the BNP are rubbing their hands in glee. These attitudes need to be challenged and where necessary confronted if fascists try to intervene on the picket lines. But there can be no question of not supporting the refinery workers.



*I have been taught nowt from this Strike, other than what moust of The Working Class allready understood The British Left, and some Anarchist might like to say there acting for the working class, as if a bunch of Middle Class would ever do this, it is utter bollocks and a lie, that again has been exposed, instaed of wondering why the far right are growing, look at yourselfs and your disgracefull actions towords The Working Class, it has been proven that The Socalist Party are more than just a slogan, here i have to pay some respect towords them, the rest of the left and some anarchist is not time we made the middle class history?*


----------



## Fruitloop (Feb 5, 2009)

Employers not being honest about pay and conditions!


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2009)

a thought occurred to me last night, aren't/weren't the strikers essentially asking for the introduction of the equivalent of a docks labour scheme (as abolished by thatch in 89) for refinery workers?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> So those saying that they won't support the strikes because a victory could only end up in foreign workers being sacked - oh dear.



And - to add to the point - they conciously voted for that even though they were wanting more jobs precisely because they knew this would be perceived as 'anti-foreign worker'


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

A Short Report from italy:

_The strike is big news here in Italy. Inevitably the press and media are portraying it as an "anti-Italian strike" - a strike for "British jobs for British workers".

The anti-immigrant Lega Nord, who are in the government, are 'warning' that similar 'anti-foreigner' protests will soon break out in the north of Italy.

But Giorgio Cremaschi, a left leader of the metal workers' union Fiom attacked neo-liberal "social dumping" policies that try to foment a "war amongst the poor".

"If the Italian workers are being paid less than the British workers and their conditions are worse, this strike is a just one" he said. "We have to fight for equal conditions".
_


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> A Short Report from italy:
> 
> _The strike is big news here in Italy. Inevitably the press and media are portraying it as an "anti-Italian strike" - a strike for "British jobs for British workers".
> 
> ...


Thanks for that.


----------



## snadge (Feb 5, 2009)

what does the capitalist lackey spion think now?


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> A Short Report from italy:
> 
> _The strike is big news here in Italy. Inevitably the press and media are portraying it as an "anti-Italian strike" - a strike for "British jobs for British workers".
> 
> ...




Where is this from?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> First you completely misread the nature of the strike.


What was the nature of the strike? 

1. What were the demands? At the level of the mass of the rank and file there was a clear demand for British jobs for British workers, and placards to that effect were very visible. At the level of the strike cttee's demands this was muted somewhat into a demand that future employees on the site be 'locally skilled'. 

2. There were also - to the credit of the strike - demands for equal pay and for unionisation of foreign workers. In fact, three out of the seven demands were for reaching out to the Italians. But what was actually done about that? Given the prominence of those demands you would have expected there to have been a visible presence appealing to the Italians to strike with the Lindsey workers. Maybe it did happen and the media have conspired to deny us knowledge of it. Or maybe it's just that those demands were way out of kilter with the mood of the mass of strikers?



dennisr said:


> so you opposed the strike, and now - irony of ironies you demand that we assess our role and report to you!! - fuck yourself fella. You haven't got a leg to stand on - You sided with the enemies


I'm not going to be dishonest, I did oppose it, on the basis that the core demands regarding future employment were for preferential treatment for British workers. That said, if I was part of an organisation or in a different union I would have organised to visit the strikers and talk to them about those concerns. If I had been present and gone along with the strike I would fought tooth and nail to change the nationalist nature of its key demand regarding future employment at the site and against the BJ4BW sentiment among the mass of strikers. I would have argued that the key task was to emphasise the demands for jobs and equal rights for ALL workers by practically and very visibly reaching out to the Italian workers to win them over to strike also and to ensure they are employed at equal rates. That the 'socialists' who have been involved directly in this strike have failed to do that is to their discredit.

Which of its demands has the strike won?
The strike demanded: 

No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action. 
All workers in UK to be covered by the NAECI agreement. 
Union-controlled registering of unemployed and local skilled union members with nominating rights as work becomes available. 
Government and employer investment in proper training/apprenticeships for the new generation of construction workers. Fight for a future for young people 
All immigrant labour to be unionised. 
Trade union assistance for immigrant workers, via interpreters, to give right of access to trade union advice - to promote active integrated trade union members. 
Build links with construction trade unions on the continent

So far, what I can see that the strike has won is 102 news jobs. That's a good thing, but it doesn't match with what was demanded. You could say that that's a result of the BJ4BW workers demand, although modified - by the bosses as a result of not wating to break discrimination law and becuase of existing contractual arrangements with IREM? - as the end result is that the Italians also have their jobs intact.

Maybe someone knows whether any of the strike's *stated* demands have been won?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

snadge said:


> what does the capitalist lackey spion think now?


LOL, you're such a pathetic caricature. Read for yourself /\/\/\/\


----------



## snadge (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> LOL, you're such a pathetic caricature. Read for yourself /\/\/\/\



you what?

The company will HAVE to pay NAECI rates now they have UK workers working alongside them, plain and simple or the lads will walk again.

You seem to have next to no idea how this stuff works.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> But what was actually done about that? Given the prominence of those demands you would have expected there to have been a visible presence appealing to the Italians to strike with the Lindsey workers. Maybe it did happen and the media have conspired to deny us knowledge of it. *Or maybe it's just that those demands were way out of kilter with the mood of the mass of strikers*



Absolutely, in fact so out of kilter with 'the mood of the mass of the strikers' that those strikers voted overwhelmingly for those demands. Spot on, the best way of proving that the 'mood of the mass of the strikers' were/are against the Italian workers and in regard to these 3 demands is to show that they voted overwhelmingly for them.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Absolutely, in fact so out of kilter with 'the mood of the mass of the strikers' that those strikers voted overwhelmingly for those demands. Spot on, the best way of proving that the 'mood of the mass of the strikers' were/are against the Italian workers and in regard to these 3 demands is to show that they voted overwhelmingly for them.


So, what was the practical effect of that positive vote? In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?


----------



## snadge (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?



They don't need the Italians out, the Italian workers are in a win situation, read my above post.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> So, what was the practical effect of that positive vote? In other words, what overtures did the strikers make towards the Italians to get them out too?



I've never seen someone so desperate to label strikers as anti-foreign bigots in order to prove his political 'integrity'.

As yet we don't know, who's to say. What can now happen, is that, the strikers should approach them asap.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> So far, what I can see that the strike has won is 102 news jobs. That's a good thing, but it doesn't match with what was demanded. You could say that that's a result of the BJ4BW workers demand, although modified - by the bosses as a result of not wating to break discrimination law and becuase of existing contractual arrangements with IREM? - as the end result is that the Italians also have their jobs intact.



I'm not going to bother going over and over and over with you the rest of your post. You didn't and still don't understand the nature of the dispute or the *class* issues that were clearly underlying and you were not interested in information that showed your secondhand black/white view up for what it was - that's why you went with the other side when push cam to shove.

But on the bit quoted about - what dispute recently has achieved 'all of its demands' - if anything the mistaken slogans at the beginning were less of a problem than the utterly cowardly response of so-called lefts like you - you took the side of the employers, the media, the politicians and the BNP in making out out this was simply a reactionary movement about race etc etc not class. The strikers did not go for more precisely because they did not want to be seen as anti-italian.

you made your bed, you lay in it


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> I've never seen someone so des[perate to label strikers as anti-foreign bigots in order to prove his political ibntegrity.



absolutely - stinks

and then there was that post were he talked about himself as a "red" (when accusing me of "intimidation" - the fantasist). The only people who have ever used that term to me in the past are fash.

i'm not accusing you of that Spoin - but it shows you know fuck all


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> I've never seen someone so desperate to label strikers as anti-foreign bigots in order to prove his political 'integrity'.


Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. I have clearly stated in my earlier post that there were both progressive and reactionary demands. You have to smear me to cover for your spinelessness in dealing with the latter 

If I had been for the strike I would still have opposed the BJ4BW and 'locally skilled' demands tooth and nail.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> absolutely - stinks
> 
> and then there was that post were he talked about himself as a "red" (when accusing me of "intimidation" - the fantasist). The only people who have ever used that term to me in the past are fash.
> 
> i'm not accusing you of that Spoin - but it shows you know fuck all


You know exactly what you're accusing me of you scumbag


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> You didn't and still don't understand the nature of the dispute or the *class* issues that were clearly underlying


I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demand


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demand



you don't want to understand 

tithead


----------



## Knotted (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> If I had been for the strike I would still have opposed the BJ4BW and 'locally skilled' demands tooth and nail.



Why didn't you support the strike? Even if it had been 'nationalist', what sort of leftist opposes striking workers?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> You know exactly what you're accusing me of you scumbag



just crawl back under your stone, idiot


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> you don't want to understand
> 
> tithead


You simply can't answer it so you resort to insults


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Why didn't you support the strike? Even if it had been 'nationalist', what sort of leftist opposes striking workers?



well one would in certain situations (as a leftist like) - the problem was this was not one of those situations - just superficially and completely misread on his part


----------



## snadge (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour be employed before European labour is a 'class' demand



that is because you are a capitalist lackey, you missed out an extremely important part in the above.



> I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the demand that 'locally skilled' labour *payed at the previously agreed NAECI rate* be employed before *cheaper, union busting* European labour is a 'class' demand



if the above is true, there is no need to employ foreign workers as it would become more cost effective to use local labour and only using foreign workers if needed due to skill shortages.

You are blindly ignoring a huge part of the issue.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> You simply can't answer it so you resort to insults



that's right


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

snadge said:


> that is because you are a capitalist lackey, you missed out an extremely important part in the above.
> 
> 
> 
> if the above is true, there is no need to employ foreign workers as it would become more cost effective to use local labour and only using foreign workers if needed due to skill shortages.



I wouldn't bother waring yourself out snage

you don't think this self appointed expert is going to start listening instead of knowing after so many hundreds of posts?

s/he's just desperatly trying to cover her/his own mistakes - more interested in how s/he is perceived than showing solidarity with the workers s/he condemns


----------



## Knotted (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> well one would in certain situations (as a leftist like) - the problem was this was not one of those situations - just superficially and completely misread on his part



Once strike action has been taken its not only the demands of workers but their organisation that is at stake. Even if action is taken for the wrong reasons, if it is successful then the workers will be in a position to put forward progressive demands.

I don't understand where Spion's instincts are coming from.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

chilango said:


> Where is this from?



Just a general copy and paste mate:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6854

Actually the writer is based in Milan I think (unless she has moved again)


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> s/he's just desperatly trying to cover her/his own mistakes - more interested in how s/he is perceived than showing solidarity with the workers s/he condemns


If I had come out in favour of the strike I would still have fought tooth and nail against the nationalist elements of the strike's demands and the BJ4BW sentiment among the mass of strikers.

What evidence do we have that you did? You just pretended it didn't exist, that it was all a media lie.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Once strike action has been taken its not only the demands of workers but their organisation that is at stake. Even if action is taken for the wrong reasons, if it is successful then the workers will be in a position to put forward progressive demands.
> 
> I don't understand where Spion's instincts are coming from.



"A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/04-again.htm


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Just a general copy and paste mate:
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6854
> 
> Actually the writer is based in Milan I think (unless she has moved again)



okay.

I've not heard anyone talking about these strikes here.

But, I would imagine that the response would be as you say.

However, the Lega Nord et al can happily forment anti-foreigner stuff up here without any help from this...


Good that there is some contact with Rifondazione though....


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Once strike action has been taken its not only the demands of workers but their organisation that is at stake. Even if action is taken for the wrong reasons, if it is successful then the workers will be in a position to put forward progressive demands.
> 
> I don't understand where Spion's instincts are coming from.



Agree - an activist would hardly cross a picket line even if they opposed demands in their entirety. They would be on the picket line arguing their case

In defense - Spion did argue that's what s/he would have done (theorecticaly) - after spending the previous god knows how many posts showing how all these strikers were reactionaries to anyone who would listen (and plenty who gave up listening...). Which - given the actual position Spion is in was siding with boss media lies


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> a thought occurred to me last night, aren't/weren't the strikers essentially asking for the introduction of the equivalent of a docks labour scheme (as abolished by thatch in 89) for refinery workers?



Kind of, it reminds me of the old print unions and how they sent unemployed workers on their books to jobs - both are from a time when unions exercised real power.

So what do people think of the outcome?

100 extra jobs created without the sacking of any foreign workers - looks like a good result to me.

It feels though that this is just the beginning of much stronger and wider movements across Europe this year.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> "A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership."
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/04-again.htm



Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh -  a (secondhand) quote from Trotsky - you must be right then - I bow before your intellectual prowess

Yep, the situation at the refinary was exactly the same as the US in the 1930s

you sad feck


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Agree - an activist would hardly cross a picket line even if they opposed demands in their entirety. They would be on the picket line arguing their case
> 
> In defense - Spion did argue that's what s/he would have done (theorecticaly)


*falls off chair* *gets back up* Yes, that's spot on



dennisr said:


> - after spending the previous god knows how many posts showing how all these strikers were reactionaries


No I did not. I said there were some reactionary demands among the strike's aims and sentiments. I did not say 'they were all reactionaries'. I'd call you thick, but I don't think you are, you are simply misrepresenting me to cover your position which is to take the 180 degree opposite of the 'they're all reactionaries' by trying to paint the strikers as 'they're all anti-racists'. It's clearly more complex than either of those silly caricatures


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh -  a (secondhand) quote from Trotsky - you must be right then - I bow before your intellectual prowess
> 
> Yep, the situation at the refinary was exactly the same as the US in the 1930s


I didn't say it was. It was an answer to Knotted's question about how can leftists ever oppose strikes when that might mean their organisation might be destroyed. You really are dense and dishonest aren't you?


----------



## Knotted (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> "A trade union led by reactionary fakers organizes a strike against the admission of Negro workers into a certain branch of industry. Shall we support such a shameful strike? Of course not. But let us imagine that the bosses, utilizing the given strike, make an attempt to crush the trade union and to make impossible in general the organized self-defense of the workers. In this case we will defend the trade union as a matter of course in spite of its reactionary leadership."
> 
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/04-again.htm



Exactly!!

Presumably this includes defending the trade union (or in our case the strikers) against slanders in the media rather than perpetuating those slanders ourselves.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> If I had come out in favour of the strike I would still have fought tooth and nail against the nationalist elements of the strike's demands and the BJ4BW sentiment among the mass of strikers.
> 
> What evidence do we have that you did? You just pretended it didn't exist, that it was all a media lie.



Sorry - remind me again about 'honesty'. You really are a sucker for exposing your own idiocy arn't you?

You have convienently forgotten that SP members were on the that picket line - even on the elected committee. They did fight tooth and nail to overturn backward slogans and put forward a class position - they played a key role in turning that strike around and their demands were adopted by the strikers along with an additional one the strikers called for themselves (our members were not 100% confident they would be willing to take up) of reinstating a victimised worker who is and SP member  - and as a result there are 100 new jobs with no job losses and ongoing discussions on how to turn this movement into united EU wide workers action. But hey, thanks for the sage like 'advice' on how to win.

Far from pretending there was no dodgy elements  - I have personally alluded to this in christ knows how many posts on this thread alone as part of expalining and putting across solutions to this reactionary element. Unlike you I did not simply try and make out again asnd again and again that the entire workforce were reactionary BNP leaning racists - dickhead


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> You really are dense and dishonest aren't you?



and you are the voice of 'truth' and 'reason'


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> It's clearly more complex than either of those silly caricatures



not complex enough to support ehh?

and so unwilling to fall for 'silly caricatures' that you spend countless posts - repeatedly - would you like someone to list them for you - doing precisely that


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Knotted said:


> Exactly!!
> 
> Presumably this includes defending the trade union (or in our case the strikers) against slanders in the media rather than perpetuating those slanders ourselves.


It means defending the union from destruction of its ability to operate. Not fooling ourselves that there are not reactionary elements to the strikers stated aims just because that might be similar to something the mdeia says. That's just straighforward self-deception


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Unlike you I did not simply try and make out again asnd again and again that the entire workforce were reactionary BNP leaning racists - dickhead


Once again you have to invent straw men. Pathetic and shameful


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Once again you have to invent straw men. Pathetic and shameful



you don't ???? 

remind me again about your view of these deluded reactionaries you fell forced to oppose who have just won what they have just won

at least if I do 'invent straw men' - I am not doing it for myself - to legitimise ME


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> It means defending the union from destruction of its ability to operate. Not fooling ourselves that there are not reactionary elements to the strikers stated aims just because that might be similar to something the mdeia says. That's just straighforward self-deception



How lucky and priviliged the strikers were to be saved from themselves by your timely intervention.

You are seriously delusional 

I'll leave this now - you can claim' victory' given my 'unwillingness to discuss'


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> remind me again about your view of these deluded reactionaries you fell forced to oppose who have just won what they have just won


Here



Spion said:


> What was the nature of the strike?
> 
> 1. What were the demands? At the level of the mass of the rank and file there was a clear demand for British jobs for British workers, and placards to that effect were very visible. At the level of the strike cttee's demands this was muted somewhat into a demand that future employees on the site be 'locally skilled'.
> 
> ...


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Here



Except that was AFTERWARDS ie in RETROSPECT - sorry a bit late for those on the picket line - you know, the ones who had to be saved from themselves

tara (or should i say tara, media lackey ?  )


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Except that was AFTERWARDS ie in RETROSPECT - sorry a bit late for those on the picket line - you know, the ones who had to be saved from themselves
> 
> tara (or should i say tara, media lackey ?  )



Here's what 'e said before:


> I stand by these workers in the sense that I think their anger is justified at redundancy and attacks on working conditions, but I do not support a strike aimed at favouring British over other workers.
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=8711289&postcount=1376



It looks like conditinal support; conditional on an internationalist outlook, rather than a BJFBW/LJFLW stance. 

LJFLW: "What will it take to get you back to work?', to which he replied, "I believe the protesters would like to have access to the jobs and when all local labour and all local skilled labour has been exhausted then they should move further afield. The last resort should be to employ European labour." 
" from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm

And this doesn't look good to European Unions (CGIL already said it looks like ugly nationalism) and if there's any danger European Unionists might take up this line, and divide w/c on nationalist lines then what impact on Brits working in Europe? The contract/agencies will just try to bring in non-Europeans to work, won't they! We don't live in a vacuum, so how can you seriously suggest (to dennisr) that BJFBW/LJFLW won't create a chain reaction when unemployment in Europe is running higher than it is in UK?!


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Except that was AFTERWARDS ie in RETROSPECT - sorry a bit late for those on the picket line - you know, the ones who had to be saved from themselves
> 
> tara (or should i say tara, media lackey ?  )



You are making a tit of yourself. Spion's views aren't those of 'the enemy', or 'the bosses/media lackey' *sigh* Looks to me like he's trying to protect against  a nationalist chain-reaction by other European w/c.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

"The proposed deal gives British workers 102 jobs out of a total of 195 on the bulk of the new desulphurisation plant contract, including 67 skilled positions — welders, electricians and platers.

It does not involve any Italian redundancies as only 100 posts have so far gone to the foreign workers based on a hostel barge moored in Grimsby docks.

The British jobs will come from the second tranche, which would almost certainly have gone to Italian staff had the row not erupted. But no contracts have been issued by the Italian subcontractor IREM for the 95 posts still to be filled"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/tradeunions

If that's the case BJ4BW was successful as a strike aim. It's good that people get jobs but someone else that was set to get them has lost that chance and the end result is the w/c has fought for crumbs from the boss's table rather than fighting for jobs for all. A zero-sum game has been played


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

So what of Shaws, the original employer who laid off workers b4 the winter holidays, and failed to get the contract which IREM won? 
Do they use a core workforce like IREM? 

Shaws have barely been mentioned at all. Do they employ non-UK residents? I don't know much about them.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> So what of Shaws, the original employer who laid off workers b4 the winter holidays, and failed to get the contract which IREM won?


Mmmmmm, why haven't they been a target here?


----------



## glenquagmire (Feb 5, 2009)

Because they pay NAECI terms and conditions?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Mmmmmm, why haven't they been a target here?



because they dont speak funny?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

glenquagmire said:


> Because they pay NAECI terms and conditions?


Not to the workers they made redundant they don't


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Mmmmmm, why haven't they been a target here?



Dunno. Presumably it's Shaws shop stewards who informed the men that IREM had got the contract. 

Could it be Shaws who also blacklisted that former shop steward and SP party member who I think was the scots bloke interviewed in that clip above (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7867207.stm) and whose reinstatement is mentioned on the SP generated list of demands. In that same clip, is it Kenny Ward, Unite shop steward, who says European labour should be employed as last resort?


----------



## ymu (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> If that's the case BJ4BW was successful as a strike aim. It's good that people get jobs but someone else has lost them and the end result is the w/c has fought for crumbs from the boss's table rather than fighting for jobs for all.


Yeah, because this dispute has arisen in isolation. There's no history, no context, and the slogan you object to is not a Brown soundbite being thrown back in his face by wildcat strikers who are fed up with nothing fucking happening to prevent the continual erosion of their rights.



> Unions have been complaining that court interpretations of the EU Posted Workers Directive effectively prevent unions from taking industrial action to stop foreign workers being employed in the UK at low wages. For more than a year, the unions, notably the engineering union Unite, have been campaigning to persuade either the EU or Britain to overturn the rulings.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/03/trade-unions-lindsey-strikes



You have a valid point, but you only seem to be interested in using it to undermine the strikers. Why? Is it just a stupid testosterone thing, or do you really think that the mistakes made by some individuals in an industrial dispute that has been brewing for months are sufficiently important for you to devote more or less every word of every single post you've put on this thread to denouncing them rather than supporting the strike.


----------



## snadge (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Not to the workers they made redundant they don't



It isn't Shaw's contract, when a situation like this arises on site usually the paid off workers jump ship to the other contract and whichever company has it with no change in pay and conditions and yes Shaws pay NAECI rates.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

*Solidarietá, non Segragazione!*



ymu said:


> Yeah, because this dispute has arisen in isolation. There's no history, no context, and the slogan you object to is not a Brown soundbite being thrown back in his face by wildcat strikers who are fed up with nothing fucking happening to prevent the continual erosion of their rights.


Are you supportive of Israeli unions who refuse to work alongside Palestinians and didn't allow them to join their unions and get a decent wage-the same wage-rate as Israeli-Jews were being paid? (This was ongoing issue for decades, until Pals were squeezed out of Israeli workforce and now work illegally for peanuts). Are you pro IJJFIJW (Israeli-Jewish Jobs for Israeli-Jewish workers) ? DO you understand what the effect will be if all European Unionists decide to adopt a similar stance to BJFBW ? 

Do you realise that this BJFBW is an ultra-nationalist stance, and although Brown is responsible for reviving a National-Front slogan, it is a trap that we all would prefer could be navigated swiftly away from before solidarity with Euro Unionists becomes impossible. This slogan BJFBW serves to disunite the European w/c - it is an trap set by Brown in Sept 2007, and basically is a spectacular own-goal. No-one here blames the striking workforce for rising to Brown's Bait - they are just pointing out that it's going to cause harm if demands aren't refined and consideration of state-of-play in European states isn't considered. Solidarietá, non Segragazione!


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

ymu said:


> Is it just a stupid testosterone thing, or do you really think that the mistakes made by some individuals in an industrial dispute that has been brewing for months are sufficiently important for you to devote more or less every word of every single post you've put on this thread to denouncing them rather than supporting the strike.


I do think that those 'mistakes' have to be dealt with. This might not be the last of these strikes and it's got to be a good thing that they are made as internationalist as possible in future.

Re denouncing rather than supporting - even if I had supported this strike I would have said the same thing about the nationalist character of some of the demands.

And please, the 'testosterone' reference. Imagine someone made reference to your hormones rather than dealing with your argument at face value. It'd be a low trick wouldn't it?


----------



## treelover (Feb 5, 2009)

Indymedia has not covered this, only two posts put up as well, a big fail for them and perhaps indicative of the wider 'activist' movement.


----------



## where to (Feb 5, 2009)

> *Brussels signals rethink on labour rules*
> 
> Brussels on Wednesday waded into the UK’s industrial dispute over employing foreign workers, promising to take a closer look at how European Union rules governing the free movement of labour are affecting employees.
> 
> ...



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/640ec03a-f306-11dd-abe6-0000779fd2ac.html


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 5, 2009)

treelover said:


> Indymedia has not covered this, only two posts put up as well, a big fail for them and perhaps indicative of the wider 'activist' movement.


I take it you decided to ignore the questions of a few pages ago then. Oh well.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

where to said:


> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/640ec03a-f306-11dd-abe6-0000779fd2ac.html



Very good - prospects of Europe wide strikes must have made them v. twitchy. Not over hopeful yet though. Nothing can beat cross-Unionist solidarity and that seems to be of paramount importance. 

Of course, if future coordinated strikes are broken by 'imported' Indian agency/contract-labour, then are Europe's (incl. UK) w/c ready for the twists and turns that these companies will pull on the workforce? 

Tory-leader is being too soft. BJFBW is ultra-nationalist. That needs to be discouraged to prevent workers alienating non-UK workers on nationalist grounds.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2009)

excellent article by seamus milne in today's guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/05/strikes-foreign-workers


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> excellent article by seamus milne in today's guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/05/strikes-foreign-workers


Yes, very good article. 

I'm hoping that we're watching the unfolding of a new chapter in Internationalist labour relations between various workers' unions. 
How about you?


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2009)

that'd be nice.

Some things are clear tho, despite having a crap initial slogan, the strikers have won concessions on ensuring that all work is at union rates, the laval and viking rulings are finally in the news, no foreign workers have lost their jobs.  Not too bad for a few days work


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

belboid said:


> that'd be nice.
> 
> Some things are clear tho, despite having a crap initial slogan, the strikers have won concessions on ensuring that all work is at union rates, the laval and viking rulings are finally in the news, no foreign workers have lost their jobs.  Not too bad for a few days work



They made mistakes in the beginning, but showed their capable handling by moving away from their initial angry reaction. I think the majority both in UK and abroad will be able to see this. 

The fash were very opportunistic to join in, yet quickly marched away, for which we're all thankful for. Still, they're going to be stirring it in other European countries, so that's a message to be "en guard", d'accord? 

It's quite new, and I think that the constructive criticisms made from many quarters can only make the movement stronger.

Now I think one thing to be explored is the companies involved. Does Alstom hate French unionists already? I think so. More exploration on the contract/agency problems. 

How do EDF, RWE, ConocoPhillips, and other large European companies operate in UK?
 Lets explore further the way they operate in other European states (and non-European states too).

Also, I don't want Brown exploiting unemployment fears and selling the public including the construction workforce his crazy nuclear package when CHP units are guaranteed to be more efficient, quicker to build, and safer to run and maintain.


----------



## TomPaine (Feb 5, 2009)

> BJFBW is ultra-nationalist.



Please... honestly. I don't think Brown used that phrase because the NF had onced used it. I'm sure plenty of other people have said that phrase as well who aren't "ultra-Nationalists".

Ultra-Nationalism bring to mind Mosely and the Black shirts goose steeping on mass towards Cable Street, not a couple of  Union Jack flags and a few badly made PC printed banners.

Try and put things into perspective, "Ultra-Nationalist" honestly makes you sound like you are on some sort of witch hunt. Direct that towards the BNP and NF by all means, but I wouldn't say that slogan when taken in context is "Ultra-Nationalist".


----------



## chilango (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> They made mistakes in the beginning, but showed their capable handling by moving away from their initial angry reaction. I think the majority both in UK and abroad will be able to see this.
> 
> The fash were very opportunistic to join in, yet quickly marched away, for which we're all thankful for. Still, they're going to be stirring it in other European countries, so that's a message to be "en guard", d'accord?
> 
> ...



good post


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

TomPaine said:


> Please... honestly. I don't think Brown used that phrase because the NF had onced used it. I'm sure plenty of other people have said that phrase as well who aren't "ultra-Nationalists".
> 
> Ultra-Nationalism bring to mind Mosely and the Black shirts goose steeping on mass towards Cable Street, not a couple of  Union Jack flags and a few badly made PC printed banners.
> 
> Try and put things into perspective, "Ultra-Nationalist" honestly makes you sound like you are on some sort of witch hunt. Direct that towards the BNP and NF by all means, but I wouldn't say that slogan when taken in context is "Ultra-Nationalist".



Sorry Tom, I do feel I am correct on this (and being ultra-protective, but hear me out). 

Although I agree that with this strike, angry workforce have used on it because of Brown having made promises which he couldn't possibly keep and that they're not ultranationalist, that doesn't stop the slogan being ultranationalist and I am not afraid to say so. Just like the strikers weren't afraid to see how damaging that slogan was, and how it trapped them and led to them being called xenophobes/anti-foreigner/nationalist etc. 

I am coming at this from years at watching and commenting on the work/attitudes of ultranationalists in Israel. Basically Israeli workforce is now isolated and controlled by politicians and military whose brand is crisis and who use fear to keep them in their neoliberal hell. I don't want that to happen in UK or Europe.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> You are making a tit of yourself. Spion's views aren't those of 'the enemy', or 'the bosses/media lackey' *sigh* Looks to me like he's trying to protect against  a nationalist chain-reaction by other European w/c.



Why are you so desperate to defend him and his 'conditional support'.

How would you feel about this level of 'support' - endless condemnation and reinforcement of medias lies?

His trying to 'protect against nationalistic chain-reaction' was doing just that

I gave up taking the pseudo-'left' idiot seriously a while ago - if you can't see tongue in cheek comments for what they are...

Your later post (1466) was spot on - its covers the real issues both those workers and plenty of others face


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Your later post (1466) was spot on - its covers the real issues both those workers and plenty of others face


ta very much, mate


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

Andy the Don said:


> Not when we are seeing record rises in unemployment in the UK.


This is happening all over Europe. Spain is currently at 15% unemployment, yes?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> How would you feel about this level of 'support' - endless condemnation and reinforcement of medias lies?


And your form of support is to uncritically defend a strike that has resulted in workers sharing crumbs from the bosses table. Instead of winning jobs for all who need them the existing contract has been shared out and Italians who were going to get jobs are not now. That's the Socialist Party putting their socialist theory into practice is it?


----------



## lewislewis (Feb 5, 2009)

Plaid Cymru statement on the protests:
http://leannewoodamac.blogspot.com/2009/02/statement-on-oil-refinery-protests.html


----------



## JimW (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> And your form of support is to uncritically defend a strike that has resulted in workers sharing crumbs from the bosses table. Instead of winning jobs for all who need them the existing contract has been shared out and Italians who were going to get jobs are not now. That's the Socialist Party putting their socialist theory into practice is it?


I thought their form of support was to be there, do something and win, rather than make a wrong call right from the off and then keep digging like a cunt - smearing working class people from the sidelines and carrying water for the bosses. Your "socialist theory" is your middle class ultra-liberalism.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

JimW said:


> IYour "socialist theory" is your middle class ultra-liberalism.


If jobs for all who need them, regardless of nationality, paid from the bosses' profits is middle class ultra liberalism I'll keep it and you can stuff your parochial, petty bureuacrat brand of trade unionism right up your arse.

I've quite clearly said I would have been on the picket line arguing to change the chauvinist elements of the strike's demands. But I don't expect you to have read that while you're so busy waving your pitchfork around.

Good day to you


----------



## JimW (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> If jobs for all who need them, regardless of nationality, paid from the bosses' profits is middle class ultra liberalism I'll keep it and you can stuff your parochial, petty bureuacrat brand of trade unionism right up your arse.


I'm sure you will keep it - you show no signs of understanding history or learning from events. The alternative to "petty bureaucrat" trade unionism isn't Fantasy Island attempts to sound more radical than thou after the event - during which you pissed about or were an active distraction at best, hostile and spreading capitalist press smears at worst.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

JimW said:


> I'm sure you will keep it - you show no signs of understanding history or learning from events. The alternative to "petty bureaucrat" trade unionism isn't Fantasy Island attempts to sound more radical than thou after the event - during which you pissed about or were an active distraction at best, hostile and spreading capitalist press smears at worst.



Talking about yourself again, JimW? 

I thought Spion's contribution was constructive criticism. All he did was make support conditional on an international approach/link up to ensure no calls of protectionism, chauvinism, xenophobia, etc could be levied at strikers. 

If and when these strikes occur again, officially this time and with support from europe's unionists, then the strikers will need the people of this country behind them, supporting them, so dealing with constructive criticism now will lessen any chance of divisiveness from govt/bosses later one.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I thought Spion's contribution was constructive criticism. All he did differently was make support conditional on an international approach/link up.


Spot on.

I would have said the same thing about some of the strike's aims if I'd worked there and been there on the picket line.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Why are you so desperate to defend him and his 'conditional support'.


'Cos I've taken on board what he said including his constructive criticisms, and seen how future strikes could and would be undermined in the media and by the govt. 

I know you're personally offended by his conditional support, but realistically, these criticisms have to be absorbed and cause change, to safeguard and ensure future successes. Solidarietá, non segragazione! 

It ain't over yet, so it's best to take those criticisms on board. 

Future Public support is vital, as is support of other unionists across Europe at a time when unemployment is greater than Uk. 

The public as you know can be fickle and easily swayed once the Mail/Sun wade in with their commentaries, and the right-wing are quick to seize and exploit civil unrest to recruit for their narrow nationalisms, whilst both left and right groups try to exploit the situation to recruit. We need to pull together and work together and ensure that internationally, every worker is on board!


----------



## Nigel (Feb 5, 2009)

*Strikers attacking Neo-Liberal Agenda*

Interesting article in Morning Star(31/01/09 P.9) Undermining Labour: Brian Denny

"......total is  exploiting EU law which demands the free movement of capital, goods,services & labour, a neo liberal model which facilitates a race to the bottom in wages and conditions."

".....the process began back in 1987 with Margaret Thatcher's Single European Act, which Tory MP John Bercow later boasted was about imposing a single market to acheive "Thatcherism Of Europe"

This can be illustrated by the Bruges Speech by Margaret Thatcher 1988
 ".....by getting rid of the barriers, by making it possible for companies for companies to operate on a Europe wide scale, we can best compete with the USA, Japan,& other new economic powers of Europe"(meanig Eastern Europe I suppose)
http://brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=92#britain

".....Four recent judgements by the European Court of Justice known as Laval, Viking, Ruffert and Luxemberg have also enshrined the race to the bottom in the ECJ case law and gives huge new powers to employers to bring in contract labour anywhere within the EU."

This is illustrated by the Institute Of Economic Research;NEO-LIBERALISM AND NEW LABOUR'S LABOUR LAWS:
	 RETROSPECT AND PROSPECTS

www.ier.org.ils/systems/files/Morton+paper+FINAL.doc


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

chilango said:


> tangentlama said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



cheers chilango. 

wonder if we need a separate thread to explore the contract/agency probs?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Strikers attacking Neo-Liberal Agenda


By putting forward a protectionist one. 

There needs to be an internationalist working class alternative in the face of job cuts and European bosses' shennanigans


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion - can you explain what protectionism is and why it's objectionable (for the uninitiated, please!).


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Spion - can you explain what protectionism is and why it's objectionable (for the uninitiated, please!).


Protectionism is the closing down of economies into their national units by use of tariffs and the like which seek to protect 'our' capitalists from foreign competition. Its opposite is free trade, which seeks to lessen tariff barriers between countries - the EU is an example of the latter.

Supporting BJ4BW can be seen as the trade union version of supporting our capitalists. The Morning Star has lots of form in this regard

IMO, the only clear path for w/c activists is not to favour 'our' or another set of capitalists but to fight against them all by forcing them to pay for the jobs, housing, society we need.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> By putting forward a protectionist one.
> 
> There needs to be an internationalist working class alternative in the face of job cuts and European bosses' shennanigans



I could'nt agree more, industrial dispute such as Liverpool Dockers etc. had a phenominal effect.

However this dispute was different( i should imagine) based on gut feelings  of working people of betrayal by their political representatives plus unaccountable and undemocratic institutions which probably the majority of people in this country are opposed to (we don't know because their has'nt been a refferendum since Heath). Which is based on a bosses, neo-liberal agenda for a free flow of Capital & Labour throughout EU countries based on free market capitalism at he expense of Labour.

'Internationalist' is the right word to use: integration of various nation states respecting there self determination.


----------



## ymu (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Protectionism is the closing down of economies into their national units by use of tariffs and the like which seek to protect 'our' capitalists from foreign competition. Its opposite is free trade, which seeks to lessen tariff barriers between countries - the EU is an example of the latter.
> 
> Supporting BJ4BW can be seen as the trade union version of supporting our capitalists. The Morning Star has lots of form in this regard
> 
> IMO, the only clear path for w/c activists is not to favour 'our' or another set of capitalists but to fight against them all by forcing them to pay for the jobs, housing, society we need.


I think you'll find that capitalists like protectionism when it prevents competition for their goods and services, and dislike it when it prevents competition for jobs and wages. It's a huge error to equate protection of employment conditions with trade protectionism.

Local jobs for local workers is badly expressed, IMO - it means local jobs on locally negotiated terms and conditions, ie no ability to profit by bussing in a poor and exploited workforce from outside the area (which, let's face it, isn't usually gonna happen unless the bussed in workers are cheaper or more pliant than the locals). 

There's a reason why the CBI objects to caps on immigration - it's the same reason why the UK government allow immigration but keep immigrants in legal limbo for years on end - and it's the reason behind this strike. Unions and collective bargaining mean absolutely nothing if workers who are not covered by local agreements can be temporarily imported to do the job instead.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Protectionism is the closing down of economies into their national units by use of tariffs and the like which seek to protect 'our' capitalists from foreign competition. Its opposite is free trade, which seeks to lessen tariff barriers between countries - the EU is an example of the latter.
> 
> Supporting BJ4BW can be seen as the trade union version of supporting our capitalists. The Morning Star has lots of form in this regard
> 
> IMO, the only clear path for w/c activists is not to favour 'our' or another set of capitalists but to fight against them all by forcing them to pay for the jobs, housing, society we need.



European Union legislation, especially since Thatcher has always been used against working class. A good example of this would be ECHR ruling against Wapping Printers Dispute. Negotiations with Companies and Employers based in Britain would be al lot easier to make them accountable than overseas.

The idea that European Union is some sort of enlightened and proggresive institution is debatable, for instance the 'Fortress Europe' policies agianst migrants.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Negotiations with Companies and Employers based in Britain would be al lot easier to make them accountable than overseas.


If we left the EU tomorrow that wouldn't make all companies operating here UK ones would it?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

To be fair, I think some of us who aren't contributing to the thread at present could take on a small research project to discover if "foreign-based contract labour" is being brought into other EU countries with the effect of excluding or undercutting these countries' indigenous workers. 

We'd need to explore Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, and France for starters. We already know of the Laval affair, so lets see what's happening elsewhere. Who is with me?


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

ymu said:


> I think you'll find that capitalists like protectionism when it prevents competition for their goods and services, and dislike it when it prevents competition for jobs and wages. It's a huge error to equate protection of employment conditions with trade protectionism.


 Which is why I didn't do that. But let's be clear, BJ4BW was clearly aiming to protect UK workers' jobs at the expense of foreigners, and that was the result of the strike. It's quite possible the losing bidders for the contract IREM won will be quite pleased with the outcome also. 



ymu said:


> Local jobs for local workers is badly expressed, IMO - it means local jobs on locally negotiated terms and conditions, ie no ability to profit by bussing in a poor and exploited workforce from outside the area (which, let's face it, isn't usually gonna happen unless the bussed in workers are cheaper or more pliant than the locals).


 You're making a lot of assumptions here, not least of which is that businesses are choosing winning bidders simply on labour cost when other factors might include expertise, established processes which deliver efficiency and therefore cost savings in other ways etc. I'm not saying labour costs aren't ever an issue but, for example, in the Staythorpe power station case the union was arguing that UK workers were cheaper.

Now, we can discuss whether he's got his facts right but he is clearly saying here that he thinks the bosses should use local labour because it is cheaper:

'Union spokesman David Smeeton said: "Workers who are brought in are paid £12,000 to £15,000 more for their accommodation and flights home. It is economic madness not to use as many local workers as you can."'

So, we have cases where the union was saying UK workers would be cheaper and we have cases where the union was saying foreign workers were undercutting UK ones. The only answer to that can be to fight for equal pay and conditions for all, regardless of nationality, not for preference of one over another.


----------



## Spion (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> To be fair, I think some of us who aren't contributing to the thread at present could take on a small research project to discover if "foreign-based contract labour" is being brought into other EU countries with the effect of excluding or undercutting these countries' indigenous workers.
> 
> We'd need to explore Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, and France for starters. We already know of the Laval affair, so lets see what's happening elsewhere. Who is with me?


Good idea


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 5, 2009)

Info: A 4 page round up of European unemployment figures (as of Feb 3rd)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKL34525020090203?pageNumber=1


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 5, 2009)

Decent Seamus Milne article today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/05/strikes-foreign-workers


----------



## becky p (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> Protectionism is the closing down of economies into their national units by use of tariffs and the like which seek to protect 'our' capitalists from foreign competition. Its opposite is free trade, which seeks to lessen tariff barriers between countries - the EU is an example of the latter.



So you have finally come out in support of free trade.

Maybe you should have attended the picket line with a placard Calling on " Workers to support Free Trade"


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> None of your points actually address the question I asked.
> 
> It does not.
> Not irrelevant, just pointing out that the slogan used by Brown was also used by some pretty dodgy characters.
> ...


 well i disagree, BUT look, NO one on here, i would think, does not think it is important to discuss tactics and language etc etc  BUT this SWP article gets it all wrong .. the only socialist w/c reponse is to suppport the strike in banner headlines .. the SWP utterly fails to support these workers


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

dennisr said:


> A Short Report from italy:
> 
> But Giorgio Cremaschi, a left leader of the metal workers' union Fiom attacked neo-liberal "social dumping" policies that try to foment a "war amongst the poor".
> 
> ...


 yes


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

Spion said:


> "The proposed deal gives British workers 102 jobs out of a total of 195 on the bulk of the new desulphurisation plant contract, including 67 skilled positions — welders, electricians and platers.
> 
> It does not involve any Italian redundancies as only 100 posts have so far gone to the foreign workers based on a hostel barge moored in Grimsby docks.
> 
> ...



 lol .. this was NOT a revolutionary strike .. this was NOT a political strike .. this was a simple flare up trade union strike .. trade unionism is (  INITIALLY ) by its very nature parochial, insular, defensive, exclusive, selfish  .. 

( are yoy real this ignorent of what trade unionism is???) 

BUT!! ALL proper socialist/marxists/ w/c @s etc understand that the basis of w/c power is based in these insular defensive actions .. THEY MUST BE SUPPORTTED UNCONDITIONALLY .. as without this basis there is NO other w/c struggle .. no generalisation .. no pan european unions.. no effective internationalism etc etc and certainly no revolution


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Are you supportive of Israeli unions who refuse to work alongside Palestinians and didn't allow them to join their unions and get a decent wage-the same wage-rate as Israeli-Jews were being paid? (This was ongoing issue for decades, until Pals were squeezed out of Israeli workforce and now work illegally for peanuts). Are you pro IJJFIJW (Israeli-Jewish Jobs for Israeli-Jewish workers) ? DO you understand what the effect will be if all European Unionists decide to adopt a similar stance to BJFBW ?
> 
> Do you realise that this BJFBW is an ultra-nationalist stance, and although Brown is responsible for reviving a National-Front slogan, it is a trap that we all would prefer could be navigated swiftly away from before solidarity with Euro Unionists becomes impossible. This slogan BJFBW serves to disunite the European w/c - it is an trap set by Brown in Sept 2007, and basically is a spectacular own-goal. No-one here blames the striking workforce for rising to Brown's Bait - they are just pointing out that it's going to cause harm if demands aren't refined and consideration of state-of-play in European states isn't considered. Solidarietá, non Segragazione!



the politics of israel/palestine are entirely differrent to what is being discussed here .. in israel palestine  there is ( ayk) a history of state war/terrorism against the arabs, of arab using asymetric terrorism, and of ethnic cleanising against arabs and the creation of an arab threat to divide what would otherwise be string united unions .. ( apparrently israeli rail unions are on wildcat tonight) 

in england when ( and i do NOT support demands for BJFBP ) people talk about employing british OR local it is NOT in that context but in the context of empowering unions and attacking neo liberal employment laws etc  .. there are those who fall inot nationalism and every socilaist worth their salt should oppose that .. BUT this was NEVER the case in these disputes AND where the best tactic was always to support the workers anyway


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the politics of israel/palestine are entirely differrent to what is being discussed here .. in israel palestine  there is ( ayk) a history of state war/terrorism against the arabs, of arab using asymetric terrorism, and of ethnic cleanising against arabs and the creation of an arab threat to divide what would otherwise be string united unions .. ( apparrently israeli rail unions are on wildcat tonight)
> 
> in england when ( and i do NOT support demands for BJFBP ) people talk about employing british OR local it is NOT in that context but in the context of empowering unions and attacking neo liberal employment laws etc  .. there are those who fall inot nationalism and every socilaist worth their salt should oppose that .. BUT this was NEVER the case in these disputes AND where the best tactic was always to support the workers anyway



I cant think of anything to disagree with in this post.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

ymu said:


> I think you'll find that capitalists like protectionism when it prevents competition for their goods and services, and dislike it when it prevents competition for jobs and wages. It's a huge error to equate protection of employment conditions with trade protectionism.
> 
> Local jobs for local workers is badly expressed, IMO - it means local jobs on locally negotiated terms and conditions, ie no ability to profit by bussing in a poor and exploited workforce from outside the area (which, let's face it, isn't usually gonna happen unless the bussed in workers are cheaper or more pliant than the locals).
> 
> There's a reason why the CBI objects to caps on immigration - it's the same reason why the UK government allow immigration but keep immigrants in legal limbo for years on end - and it's the reason behind this strike. Unions and collective bargaining mean absolutely nothing if workers who are not covered by local agreements can be temporarily imported to do the job instead.


 spot on


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 5, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> well i disagree, BUT look, NO one on here, i would think, does not think it is important to discuss tactics and language etc etc  BUT this SWP article gets it all wrong .. the only socialist w/c reponse is to suppport the strike in banner headlines .. the SWP utterly fails to support these workers


Well, I really can't see how the article fails to support the workers.

Your assertion that there is only *one *valid socialist w/c response seems somewhat purist to me. There is rarely one valid response to anything in this world. Nothing is so black and white in my very humble opinion, as much as we'd often like it to be.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 5, 2009)

Talkie Toaster said:


> Well, I really can't see how the article fails to support the workers.
> 
> Your assertion that there is only *one *valid socialist w/c response seems somewhat purist to me. There is rarely one valid response to anything in this world. Nothing is so black and white in my very humble opinion, as much as we'd often like it to be.



for these reasons 

1) the article assumes the strike is nationalist/racist when it is not

2) it brings in, idiotically, Mosley and the NF forcing asian out of jobs when these things are almost totally irrelevent

3)it says there has been an attempt to play the race card .. there has NOT

4) it says 'but what is less clear is why the unions .. .. have focused their attention on foreign workers..' when this is simply NOT true!!! and then responds to this false story!!

5) it says workers should demand equal wages etc .. as if they are NOT .. when clearly they are

and purist? yes .. and the reason imho for 3- years of defeats is we have moved away from this position


----------



## Talkie Toaster (Feb 5, 2009)

Yes, you've posted them before, but feel free to ignore my response.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> If we left the EU tomorrow that wouldn't make all companies operating here UK ones would it?



However it would make unscrupulous companies accountable, under British Law, rather than have this neo-liberal onslaught thrust upon us.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

Nigel said:


> However it would make unscrupulous companies accountable, under British Law, rather than have this neo-liberal onslaught thrust upon us.


Feel free. I'm not really interested in scrapping through the courts and trying to get the UK state to protect me. I want to see the bosses stopped in their tracks in the workplace by workers taking action


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> Feel free. I'm not really interested in scrapping through the courts and trying to get the UK state to protect me. I want to see the bosses stopped in their tracks in the workplace by workers taking action



Well they did take unofficial action, through Wildcat strikes, negotiated and agreed on a deal in which none of the foreign workers lost their jobs and you are still slagging them off
".....British workers will be offered 102 out of 198 new jobs in the contract awarded to an Italian company at the Lindsey oil refinery in north Lincolnshire. None of the 300 Italian workers at the plant will lose their jobs under the agreement."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...itish-strike-for-british-workers-1546392.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/oil-workers-end-strike-after-job-offer-1546709.html


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Well they did take unofficial action, through Wildcat strikes, negotiated and agreed on a deal in which none of the foreign workers lost their jobs and you are still slagging them off


Nice dodge 

No new jobs were created. 100 jobs that were set to go to Italians have gone to British workers. That's not slagging anyone off - it's just a fact. 'British jobs' went to British workers



Spion said:


> "The proposed deal gives British workers 102 jobs out of a total of 195 on the bulk of the new desulphurisation plant contract, including 67 skilled positions — welders, electricians and platers.
> 
> It does not involve any Italian redundancies as only 100 posts have so far gone to the foreign workers based on a hostel barge moored in Grimsby docks.
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> No new jobs were created. 100 jobs that were set to go to Italians have gone to British workers. That's not slagging anyone off - it's just a fact. 'British jobs' went to British workers



How do you know where the jobs were going?  You dont. Stop taking the bosses word for things.

Most workers want to work close to home.  They dont actually want to travel thousands of miles for a job - one that is paid LESS than local workers have agreed (did you see the posts about the italian worker saying he got paid 1000 euro's less than his brit counterparts?).

Sourcing workers as locally as possible has always been a demand of workers in the industry, not to provide 'british jobs for british workers', but to give workers _anywhere_ preferable working conditions. That happens in itally as well as in britain.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> How do you know where the jobs were going?  You dont. Stop taking the bosses word for things.


I'm not:

"The stewards explained that Shaw had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce, numbering 200-300."


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> Nice dodge
> 
> No new jobs were created. 100 jobs that were set to go to Italians have gone to British workers. That's not slagging anyone off - it's just a fact. 'British jobs' went to British workers



The fact that the Italliens at Lindsey have not been chased out with torches and pitchforks but managed to keep their contracts is not a favourable situation and that not more workers from other countries are coaxed to work in these unfavourable conditions, living on a ship in an Estuary cut off from anyone is not a good thing.

This is hardly reactionary and Xenophobic.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> I'm not:
> 
> "The stewards explained that Shaw had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce, numbering 200-300."



that refers to the original 300 jobs, not these ones


----------



## treelover (Feb 6, 2009)

> Ten Days That Shook New Labour: Lessons of the Dispute So Far.
> Large numbers of workers taking spontaneous direct action have not only shocked this New Labour Government but have also disoriented some sections of the Left.
> 
> I have been off the scene largely because of the 3rd Runway announcement two weeks ago. When the Government announces that 10,000 members of your community are about to lose their homes and you are their MP you have a responsibility to focus your attention on their deep felt cares and concerns. So in the last couple of weeks I have thrown myself into organising meeting after meeting in my constituency, speaking to over 1500 people and contacting by various means nearly 20,000. Their response has been feelings of fear, insecurity, anxiety, anger and sheer determination to fight back.
> ...



Here is John McDonnell's view of the strike and the way forward, John and the LRC by only publishing this now, certainly missed the opportunity to speak to millions about this strike, but in the article he clearly see the problems ahead and offers some ideas.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> that refers to the original 300 jobs, not these ones


So these 102 jobs for the British lads are extra to that 300? if so, source please


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2009)

ffs, get yer head out yer arse and read the article again, it's fairly clear, unless you deliberately wish to mis-read it.

And you've got fuck all to say on the rest of my post I see. 

One might think that you have no interest whatsover in actually discussing what happened and why, and just want to slag the strikers off.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> ffs, get yer head out yer arse and read the article again, it's fairly clear, unless you deliberately wish to mis-read it.


 Which article? There are half a dozen linked to on this page



belboid said:


> And you've got fuck all to say on the rest of my post I see. .


Plenty of time, grasshopper. There'll be plenty of opportunity to discuss everyone's new found enthusiams for 'local jobs for local people' 



belboid said:


> One might think that you have no interest whatsover in actually discussing what happened and why


That's rich. I've simply asked for your source, for some definitive information on the outcome of the strike and all I get from you is a load of abuse. It looks like you're the one avoiding discussion to me.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2009)

are you being deliberately dim?  Or are you actually that stupid?  I refer to the article you just quoted, as was obvious to anyone who wasn't deliberately trying to hide their head in the sand.

You refuse to discuss anything, and simply repeat your one line mantra over and over despite many people showing you how you are (deliberately) misinterpreting what is going on.

Shameful.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

*Statement From Unite*

Rightly stating that this is also about discrimination of British workers to apply for tese contracts.

"The UK needs to upgrade and build new power stations and there are huge opportunities to create thousands of well paid and highly skilled jobs. It will be a disgrace if UK workers are not even allowed to apply for jobs to build British power stations."
http://www.amicustheunion.org/Default.aspx?page=9993


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 6, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> the politics of israel/palestine are entirely differrent to what is being discussed here .. in israel palestine  there is ( ayk) a history of state war/terrorism against the arabs, of arab using asymetric terrorism, and of ethnic cleanising against arabs and the creation of an arab threat to divide what would otherwise be string united unions ..


You're completely wrong. That incomplete history you described above is missing complicity of Histadrut Union who had an Israeli-Jewish jobs for Israeli-Jewish workers policy. That is ultra-nationalist. That is a type of protectionism, and under that policy, rampant privatisation of once-state businesses/institutions comparable to UK privatisation of transport, energy, and communications sectors have taken place, as has neoliberalisation of welfare state -pensions, health, welfare. FYI, it has never been the state alone who has dealt unequal blows to both Jewish and Arab 'foreign' workers, there has been complicity from Unions. 



			
				durruti02 said:
			
		

> ( apparrently israeli rail unions are on wildcat tonight)


That's about fraud allegations towards the northern chapter's committee was not a labour dispute. The Histadrut is now going to remove them all from their positions as a result, so it gained nothing. 






			
				Histadrut said:
			
		

> "The Histadrut will not allow committee members to take wildcat action, without the Histadrut's permission and in defiance of its instructions, that also causes unnecessary harm to the public," he said. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062136.html


Now imagine what would happen if the unions here began action to remove every single shop steward involved in the wildcat strike here - e.g. Unite shop steward Kenny Logan, one of the unemployed at the picket line at LOR. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/humber/7869873.stm)

Back to Histadrut Union, they always had a policy that boycotted of Arab (foreign) produce. Histadrut was at the very forefront of the Buy Israeli (Burn Arab) produce campaigns. For it's first 40 years it barred Arabs from working alongside it's membership. 30 years ago, Histadrut created a separate Arab ('immigrant') section and collected union dues (without permission) from their wages, but did not represent Arab workers to the bosses nor did it allow access to members benefits, pensions, welfare. It continuously sided with bosses against Israeli Arab workers (who it treated as immigrants). Now Histadrut has improved maybe a little, but basically it supports protectionism and has a frightened and complicit workforce to represent and this makes it's workforce accept all manner of shit from business and union-tops, whilst union-tops participate and support demonisation and fail to fight for 'the immigrant other'. 

The only union in Israel that does promote equal opportunities for Arab workers is WAC-Ma'an. A (right-wing) govt-linked organisation tried to take control of WAC-Ma'an and a quiet battle barely mentioned or supported by British TU's has been fought these last few years. http://www.workersadvicecenter.org/campaign/Campaign-press-release.htm



frogwoman said:


> I cant think of anything to disagree with in this post.


Maybe go and study the rise of neoliberalism and rampant privatisation since 1977 in Israel and you will alter your agreement with durruti02. Look since 1967 if you want to see effect in territories on indigenous Arab workers. 




			
				durruti02 said:
			
		

> in england when ( and i do NOT support demands for BJFBP ) people talk about employing british OR local it is NOT in that context but in the context of empowering unions and attacking neo liberal employment laws etc  .. there are those who fall inot nationalism and every socilaist worth their salt should oppose that .. BUT this was NEVER the case in these disputes AND where the best tactic was always to support the workers anyway


I don't understand what you write at the best of times. There is a pressing need to reach out to other European Trades' Unions and maybe join the Federation ICEM and ensure information is posted with them. The way the strikers were perceived abroad was not favourable so there is much work to be done to increase ties. 

LJFLW/BJFBW is a slippery slope to intolerance for 'the other' (migrant) worker. British Unions need to reach out fast to other unions. I recommend to start with CC.OO (Confederacion Sindical de Comisiones Obreras) as the largest Spanish union, mainly due to Spain having the highest unemployment and the perception of UK Unions that these strike actions will have in Spain and also contact the CGTP of Portugal plus extended contact with ICEM seems paramount importance to participation in ICEM's study of Contract and Agency Labour (CAL.ICEM). 

In 2007 (UK), the Labour Govt. announced a neoliberal plan to reward industry/bosses for taking on long-term unemployed, which is basically a revision of the pilot Israeli-style wisconsin plan "Mehalev" and seems identical to the Israeli "Lights towards Employment" (Wisconsin II) which will basically see Govt. reward the firms (bosses) if they employ unemployed Israeli (most likely Jewish) workers. Israel is a pilot - certainly a 'light to all nations', in that what it can get away with, will be happening in UK shortly afterwards. It is a pattern repeated over and over. Look and you will see this pattern. 

How do you think it feels for an overseas migrant worker to hear Unite shop stewards call for a type of protectionism in LJFLW ? How do you think Brit workers feel if they work on contracts elsewhere in Europe? 

It seems UK Govt. is engaged in some very bad stances with regard to Euro-national workers' rights and my fear is that by supporting LJFLW, the UK will alienate itself from other Euro-TU's and play into Govt/Bosses hands. They already set traps by promises of BJFBW and also the Winsconsin II plan announced back in Sept. 2007 by Prime Minister Brown. 

In UK, neoliberalism has not been fought adequately by unions, so now welfare, pensions and health are either privatised or close to privatisation - the incoming 'Wisconsin II' plan, announced by Brown in Sept 2007 (financial incentive paid to employer to employ long-term unemployed). UK Unions need to buck their ideas up and become more internationalist in their outlook and strengthen their ties with European and International Trades' Unions. And we should beware also of the right-wing unions that do exist who are complicit with bosses, trade-off their existence for workers' rights and exist as cushions for neoliberal work practices rather than a force for positive change.


----------



## strummerville (Feb 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> How do you know where the jobs were going?  You dont. Stop taking the bosses word for things.
> 
> Most workers want to work close to home.  They dont actually want to travel thousands of miles for a job - one that is paid LESS than local workers have agreed (did you see the posts about the italian worker saying he got paid 1000 euro's less than his brit counterparts?).
> 
> Sourcing workers as locally as possible has always been a demand of workers in the industry, not to provide 'british jobs for british workers', but to give workers _anywhere_ preferable working conditions. That happens in itally as well as in britain.



Absolutely right. There is nothing xenophobic about employing locally, as many workers could be from other countries anyway. Where I live in Brighton, the local football club got planning permission to build its new stadium partly by saying it would create 100's of jobs for the local community. It is being built very near Moulscombe and Whitehawk, two of the poorest estates in the country. Spion's arguments remind me of the Thatcherites in the 80's arguing for the sort of economics that decimated local communities then.


----------



## strummerville (Feb 6, 2009)

And those communities have people from Eastern Europe and Africa living there as well as the white working class. Still xenophobic to employ locally?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Absolutely right. There is nothing xenophobic about employing locally, as many workers could be from other countries anyway. Where I live in Brighton, the local football club got planning permission to build its new stadium partly by saying it would create 100's of jobs for the local community. It is being built very near Moulscombe and Whitehawk, two of the poorest estates in the country. Spion's arguments remind me of the Thatcherites in the 80's arguing for the sort of economics that decimated local communities then.



All you need now is a decent football team


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

belboid said:


> are you being deliberately dim?  Or are you actually that stupid?  I refer to the article you just quoted, as was obvious to anyone who wasn't deliberately trying to hide their head in the sand.
> 
> You refuse to discuss anything, and simply repeat your one line mantra over and over despite many people showing you how you are (deliberately) misinterpreting what is going on.
> 
> Shameful.


That's rich. It's not me that's closing down discussion with insults and teenage petulance.

Anyway, let's see. I quoted two articles on this page. 

This one:



Spion said:


> "The proposed deal gives British workers 102 jobs out of a total of 195 on the bulk of the new desulphurisation plant contract, including 67 skilled positions — welders, electricians and platers.
> 
> It does not involve any Italian redundancies as only 100 posts have so far gone to the foreign workers based on a hostel barge moored in Grimsby docks.
> 
> ...



And this one:

"The stewards explained that Shaw had lost a third of the job to IREM who would be employing their own core Portuguese and Italian workforce, numbering 200-300."

The first one tells us that the jobs that the strike won were to be given to Italians but will now go to British workers. You told me that was untrue and that I was 'taking the bosses' word' for it. So, I quoted the second one, which shows the SP saying that there were 200-300 jobs meant to go to the Italians.

So, so far, it looks like the strike did not create any new jobs but took jobs that were set to go to Italians and gave them to British workers. In other words, the slogan British Jobs for British Workers was successful. But, if you know better and have hard facts to back that up please carry on. I'm sure it'll be easier for you than getting yourself so worked up


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Spion's arguments remind me of the Thatcherites in the 80's arguing for the sort of economics that decimated local communities then.


That's right. Advocating strikes to make the bosses pay for jobs and training for all that need them regardless of nationality is a well known Thatcherite principle


----------



## CyberRose (Feb 6, 2009)

Why don't we introduce UEFA's "6 + 5 rule" into the rest of the working world?!


----------



## snadge (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> That's right. Advocating strikes to make the bosses pay for jobs and training for all that need them regardless of nationality is a well known Thatcherite principle



What about the people who live "locally" that ALREADY have the skills.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

snadge said:


> What about the people who live "locally" that ALREADY have the skills.


which bit of 'all that need them' do you not understand exactly?


----------



## snadge (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> which bit of 'all that need them' do you not understand exactly?



Nobody NEEDS them, they already have them, you're barking up the wrong tree again.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2009)

strummerville said:


> And those communities have people from Eastern Europe and Africa living there as well as the white working class. Still xenophobic to employ locally?



I'm going to avoid the word xenophobic, I don't think that's really anything to do with the discussion.  What I'm concerned about is the words unity and division.  Do the slogans promote division or Unity?

Calling for one group of workers to be privileged, to be given preferential treatment in hiring, does not promote unity, does it?  I think of the example of Northern Ireland, workers were recruited locally, but the protestants were privileged above the Catholics, and this sowed division amongst working class people.

The other thing is, the 'solution'local jobs for local people, is an illusion.  Every single job in this country if it were legislated tomorrow to be given to local British living people, would do nothing to resolve the concerns of those workers about lack of jobs.  The responsibility for the shortage jobs does not lie with the mobility of workers, it lies with the bankers at this moment in time, and the capitalist system in general.  It is not that we can't have full employment, it is that the capitalists have chosen to rein back investment, because of the lack of profit.

The one thing I will say about xenophobia, is regardless of whether the workers were or were not xenophobic, the dispute in the way it has been presented as certainly engendered a great deal of support from the xenophobes.  All the fascist bulletin boards are loving it.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2009)

Spion said:


> That's rich. It's not me that's closing down discussion with insults and teenage petulance.


no you close it down by ignoring every counter point put, and simply repeating what you first wrote.  you are not interested in discussion.

and now i've given you far more time than you deserve.


----------



## strummerville (Feb 6, 2009)

Nigel said:


> All you need now is a decent football team



With a name like Nigel - can only be Palace.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

strummerville said:


> With a name like Nigel - can only be Palace.



Nigel Quashie


----------



## socialistsuzy (Feb 6, 2009)

> Calling for one group of workers to be privileged, to be given preferential treatment in hiring, does not promote unity, does it?



that's what was happening anyway, those jobs weren't open to people from the area to apply for, is that not preferential? 
the fact, as the guardian amongst others has reported, that the BNP had been driven from the protests and that the slogan 'british jobs for british workers'' was being replaced with 'workers of the world unite' is significant. 
and would not necessarily have happened without the intervention of the socialist party, respect etc. who were able to draw out the positives of the strike and channel it in the right direction. 

they were bringing in italian labour when there are skilled people in the area  how can it be more financially viable for them to ship people in and house them on a barge than employ skilled people in the area? they must have been skimping on wages and conditions. Although this is denied but not proven, in one report i read (can't remember which, there have been so many) a portuguese or italian worker claimed they were earning £1000pm less than the british workforce. 
Winning 102 jobs open to locally based people without loss of italian/portuguese jobs and with everyone on the same contracts/pay/conditions and the books open to scruitiny by the trade unions cannot be seen as anything but a massive victory by probably the most powerful section of the british working class,in the energy industry.

Not only that, it did all of this whilst breaking the anti-trade union laws, not waiting for the right-wing trade union leaders to do something. If anything this strike will be inspirational to those moving into struggle over the next period for fighting those laws, taking on the bosses and the government and winning.


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm going to avoid the word xenophobic, I don't think that's really anything to do with the discussion.  What I'm concerned about is the words unity and division.  Do the slogans promote division or Unity?
> 
> Calling for one group of workers to be privileged, to be given preferential treatment in hiring, does not promote unity, does it?  I think of the example of Northern Ireland, workers were recruited locally, but the protestants were privileged above the Catholics, and this sowed division amongst working class people.
> 
> ...



How can this be Xenophobic, Unite negotiated a deal in which the 300 migrant workers kept their jobs?

These arguments seem to be going arounf in circles. 
Is'nt time to move in a different direction?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2009)

You make a lot of good points.  





socialistsuzy said:


> that's what was happening anyway, those jobs weren't open to people from the area to apply for, is that not preferential?


yup!





> the fact, as the guardian amongst others has reported, that the BNP had been driven from the protests


 I never doubted they would be, why would they want the fascists hijacking their dispute?  But the question remains, why would the fascists etc attracted to it?  





> and that the slogan 'british jobs for british workers'' was being replaced with 'workers of the world unite' is significant.
> and would not necessarily have happened without the intervention of the socialist party, respect etc. who were able to draw out the positives of the strike and channel it in the right direction.


 that's right, they dropped the slogan because in the terms of the bigger picture, in terms of the class struggle, it was not only a bogus, demand but a pole of attraction for the rebid rights


> they were bringing in italian labour when there are skilled people in the area  how can it be more financially viable for them to ship people in and house them on a barge than employ skilled people in the area? they must have been skimping on wages and conditions. Although this is denied but not proven, in one report i read (can't remember which, there have been so many) a portuguese or italian worker claimed they were earning £1000pm less than the british workforce.


 which should be opposed.  I believe one union Rep, argued we should employ British workers because they are cheaper.


> Winning 102 jobs open to locally based people without loss of italian/portuguese jobs and with everyone on the same contracts/pay/conditions and the books open to scruitiny by the trade unions cannot be seen as anything but a massive victory by probably the most powerful section of the british working class,in the energy industry.
> 
> Not only that, it did all of this whilst breaking the anti-trade union laws, not waiting for the right-wing trade union leaders to do something. If anything this strike will be inspirational to those moving into struggle over the next period for fighting those laws, taking on the bosses and the government and winning.


I was thinking just this morning, I hope it has that effect.

In the end it's a very complicated issue.  Should we be surprised?  As Marxist's, we talk about contradictory levels of consciousness?  This issue has for sure complicated matters.

If at the end of the day the socialist party and respect have played a part in steering the dispute in the direction you suggest, well done!  When and if you intervene is always a judgment call.  Many people felt the way SW intervened with Muslims against the war, and in respect, was a bridge too far for revolutionaries.  If they can ignore the right-wing ideas of Muslims because of the contradictory levels of consciousness, why not ignore the *POSSIBLE* right-wing ideas in this dispute.  I think the current xenophobic atmosphere that pervades Britain may have colored the analysis, but to be honest I don't know what they got up to, whether they intervened or not.

Anyway, sorry to ramble, but  I do think the points I made above, is important, a point that revolutionaries should press.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2009)

Nigel said:


> How can this be Xenophobic, Unite negotiated a deal in which the 300 migrant workers kept their jobs?
> 
> These arguments seem to be going arounf in circles.
> Is'nt time to move in a different direction?


 it goes round in circles because you for some reason completely misread what I said.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm going to avoid the word xenophobic, I don't think that's really anything to do with the discussion.  What I'm concerned about is the words unity and division.  Do the slogans promote division or Unity?.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 6, 2009)

20 million-members in the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Union (ICEM)
I note this from TUC on 24 September 2007:


> Calling the work-lives of temporary and agency workers in the UK the “dark underbelly” of British society, Trades Union Congress (TUC) General Secretary Brendan Barber gave the issue of contract and agency labour prominence on the opening day of the TUC Congress, 9 September, in Brighton.
> 
> Setting out specific instances of temporary or contract worker abuse in the UK, Barber called for new labour rights to be given to such workers in Britain. And in his keynote address to Congress, just prior to Prime Minister Gordon Brown speaking, Barber called on his government to quit the stalling, and endorse the EU Directive on Temporary and Agency Workers.
> 
> ...



Initially, two questions:
1) Did UK govt. support the directive yet?
2) Did this initiative include contract workers on sub-contract or sub-sub-contract?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 6, 2009)

Take you're point about Xenophobia.
However I get the impression that is what you are implying!

".....The one thing I will say about xenophobia, is regardless of whether the workers were or were not xenophobic, the dispute in the way it has been presented as certainly engendered a great deal of support from the xenophobes. All the fascist bulletin boards are loving it. "


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 6, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What I'm concerned about is the words unity and division. Do the slogans promote division or Unity?.



The slogans - both of them - Brown's recycled NF/BUF "BJFBW" and the toned-down LJFLW - promote division between the Euro-national workforce.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Feb 6, 2009)

> I never doubted they would be, why would they want the fascists hijacking their dispute? But the question remains, why would the fascists etc attracted to it?



If fascists are attacted to a dispute i would argue it is even more important for us to intervene with real demands and an alternative (as the socialist party did with a member on the strike committee and all the demand off their leaflet being adopted at a mass meeting as demands of the dispute).  

The BNP argue against attacks on the health service etc. doesn't mean we should not comment on these issues. they have even argued for nationalisation, and posture to the left arguing for jobs and homes (then equate that to immigration). The best way of combating the BNP is by taking up these issues and undercut them with real arguments, demands and solutions.

This was shown in these strikes, left to their own devices the BNP may have made inroads amongst a layer of the protests. 
But becuase of decisive intervention from the left putting for the real arguments whilst taking up the anger of the workers the BNP had no ground to stand on.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 6, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Unite negotiated a deal in which the 300 migrant workers kept their jobs?


Not as far as I know they didn't. 
I thought those 300 jobs which were going to migrant workers have now been reduced. with 102 jobs going to some of those workers handed 90-day redundancy notices from Shaws shop stewards.


----------



## socialistsuzy (Feb 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Not as far as I know they didn't.
> I thought those 300 jobs which were going to migrant workers have now been reduced. with 102 jobs going to some of those workers handed 90-day redundancy notices from Shaws shop stewards.



part of the deal is that none of the italian and portuguese workers are laid off they may not work in that refinery but they are still employed by IREM.


----------



## Spion (Feb 6, 2009)

socialistsuzy said:


> part of the deal is that none of the italian and portuguese workers are laid off *they may not work in that refinery but they are still employed by IREM*.



What you say doesn't match what the he Guardian reported - that only 100 posts had so far been taken up by the Italians and the 102 jobs created as a result of the strike will go to British workers rather than to overseas workers as originally planned.

"The proposed deal gives British workers 102 jobs out of a total of 195 on the bulk of the new desulphurisation plant contract, including 67 skilled positions — welders, electricians and platers.

It does not involve any Italian redundancies as only 100 posts have so far gone to the foreign workers based on a hostel barge moored in Grimsby docks.

The British jobs will come from the second tranche, which would almost certainly have gone to Italian staff had the row not erupted. But no contracts have been issued by the Italian subcontractor IREM for the 95 posts still to be filled"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/feb/04/tradeunions

If that's the case it means the strike won the right of British workers to get jobs at the expense of overseas workers does it not?

Or has the Guardian got it wrong? Do you have a source to back up your claim?


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> The slogans - both of them - Brown's recycled NF/BUF "BJFBW" and the toned-down LJFLW - promote division between the Euro-national workforce.


ffs LJFLP does NOT promote division .. we are divided already .. LJFLW coupled with trade unionism etc is about making a strong working class that CAN stop that that does divide .. capital


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 6, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> You're completely wrong. That incomplete history you described above is missing complicity of Histadrut Union who had an Israeli-Jewish jobs for Israeli-Jewish workers policy. That is ultra-nationalist. That is a type of protectionism, and under that policy, rampant privatisation of once-state businesses/institutions comparable to UK privatisation of transport, energy, and communications sectors have taken place, as has neoliberalisation of welfare state -pensions, health, welfare. FYI, it has never been the state alone who has dealt unequal blows to both Jewish and Arab 'foreign' workers, there has been complicity from Unions.
> 
> That's about fraud allegations towards the northern chapter's committee was not a labour dispute. The Histadrut is now going to remove them all from their positions as a result, so it gained nothing.
> Now imagine what would happen if the unions here began action to remove every single shop steward involved in the wildcat strike here - e.g. Unite shop steward Kenny Logan, one of the unemployed at the picket line at LOR. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/humber/7869873.stm)
> ...



1) tangent .. yes missed mentionning the israeli unions .. and i agree with you on israel and its unions!!!!OK! 

( p.s. if there is no thread on the WAC ma'an union coulkd you start one on mid east? )

2)  do you not think i understand the ABSOLUTE neccessity of pan european / pan nation state unions?? .. jaysus of course they are fundamental, but i think you put the cart b4 the horse .. at the mo we have feeble weak unions which only cover 30% of workers i think .. 

and i accept that there is a danger of wisconsin but actually that danger is not related to local employment but the weakness caused by unemployment .. 

and need to understand how important has been the use of migrnat labour in undermining trade unionism 

the only task we have at the moment is to rebuild power at the base .. and we will need LJFLP as ONE of our slogans .. if we do not have that,intrinsically coupled with demands for a living wage and union rights then we will get swamped by  demands for BJFBP .. which has conatations entirely unrelated to LJFLP ( where i am LJFLP means afro caribean and turkish and kurdish .. on the olympic site it will mean uk asians ) .. it is NOT divisive or racial or xenosphobic or nationalist .. it is about creating the conditions for the power to fundamentally challenge the division that is the basis of capitalism


----------



## Fire (Feb 7, 2009)

The truth comes out now:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31408dc6-f48e-11dd-8e76-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1



> More protests are planned next week over the use of foreign workers at Staythorpe plant in Nottinghamshire, threatening a repeat of a national wave of wildcat strikes at oil refineries, gas terminals and power stations in sympathy with the dispute at Total’s Lindsey refinery.



Lazy gits. I was right - they should have just been fired.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2009)

**yuo're too boring even for a drunk friday night**


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 7, 2009)

(days) 22,400 / 365 

= 61.37 years


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 7, 2009)

Found this at Socialist Unity blog. Aparently both Unite and the GMB didnt repudiate the wildcat strikes!!

Bloody right wing bureaucrats!!

6 February, 2009
LINDSEY OIL REFINERY STRIKE SHOWS THE NEED TO SCRAP ANTI-UNION LAWS
Filed under: Unite, strikes, Law, GMB, Trade Unions — Andy Newman @ 5:00 pm 


The recent strike at Lindsey Oil Refinery was the result of an unofficial walkout by the workers at the plant in both GMB and Unite. There were consequently a number of solidarity walkouts at a number of other sites around the UK, including UCATT members on some sites.

The important issue to note though is that neither GMB nor Unite repudiated the action and instructed their members to return to work – as they are required to by law.

Indeed Full Time Officials of both GMB and Unite spoke to the press, presenting the strikers case; and I understand offered practical assistance and helped share information between different groups of workers. Although I am told there was some tension between Unite and GMB, as I understand it because GMB national officials were more apprehensive about the likely impact of the “Put British Workers First” slogan.

Both unions therefore stepped outside the strict boundaries of the law; and had either the government or the employers sought to invoke anti-trade union legislation that is on the statute books, there would have been a major collision between the biggest manual unions in the country and the law.

But this dispute also shows the degree to which the law is an ass. Construction workers in those major projects form a relatively close knit community, who work on short to medium term stints at each site before moving on. They always have an eye on where the next job will be; and they have personal relationships that extend to other sites to people they have worked together with on previous projects

So the issue at Lindsey Oil Refinery, and the similar issue at Staythorpe Power Station, of contractors bringing in an entire workforce to replace them, affects every skilled construction worker – regardless of who actually employs them. This is especially so because the workers may work for different sub-contractors, but their real grievance may be with the prime-contractor who has let a sub-contract to a firm employing workers at a lower rate, or outside collective agreements.

In the current dispute, one of the issues is the failure of the Labour government to fully implement Article 3(8) of the Posted Workers Directive, that is designed to prevent employers playing nationalities off against one another. All the workers in the industry have a legitimate industrial greivance with the government over that.

The unions should have been able to ballot every affected worker for a legal strike, regardless of who their employer is. The law needs to be changed.


----------



## snadge (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I'm off to Cyprus for 3 months, supervision only using local labour.

This is what our company does all over the world, they provide the supervision and the company we work for supplies local labour to do the job.


And this is how it should be EVERYWHERE.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 7, 2009)

snadge said:


> Well I'm off to Cyprus for 3 months, supervision only using local labour.
> 
> This is what our company does all over the world, they provide the supervision and the company we work for supplies local labour to do the job.
> 
> ...



So you're putting Cypriot supervisors out of work then - bastard


----------



## snadge (Feb 7, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So you're putting Cypriot supervisors out of work then - bastard



LOL, we are a specialist company, so supervision is always from company payroll.

In UK we use UK based workers always as well.

*packs suntan lotion*


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 7, 2009)

If anyone is interested in hearing about the dispute from the inside, there's a public meeting on in Friends Meeting House on Euston Road in London on Friday 13th February at 7 PM.

It's jointly organised by the Socialist Party and Respect and the speakers include Keith Gibson, who was a member of the strike committee at Lindsey, and Jerry Hicks, the left candidate for General Secretary of Amicus.


----------



## JimPage (Feb 7, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If anyone is interested in hearing about the dispute from the inside, there's a public meeting on in Friends Meeting House on Euston Road in London on Friday 13th February at 7 PM.
> 
> It's jointly organised by the Socialist Party and Respect and the speakers include Keith Gibson, who was a member of the strike committee at Lindsey, and Jerry Hicks, the left candidate for General Secretary of Amicus.



Since you like orgainsing a solidarity meeting for the xenophobes and little englanders who went on strike, any chance on putting the hat round for Carol Thatcher as well?.  Will you be selling Golliwogs in an attempt to redeem them, just as you are trying to redeem the buthers apron which infested the picket lines and fascist slogans like British Jobs for British workers which wer eon the placards?

It will be years before the left will trust you lot again


----------



## snadge (Feb 8, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Since you like orgainsing a solidarity meeting for the xenophobes and little englanders who went on strike, any chance on putting the hat round for Carol Thatcher as well?.  Will you be selling Golliwogs in an attempt to redeem them, just as you are trying to redeem the buthers apron which infested the picket lines and fascist slogans like British Jobs for British workers which wer eon the placards?
> 
> It will be years before the left will trust you lot again



piss off you wankstain and grow up, it is people like you that give capitalists the rope to hang the workers with.

Spiteful, childish twats like you have no place telling us what to do, get yer own house in fucking order before you tell me how to act.


----------



## JimW (Feb 8, 2009)

JimPage said:


> <snip>
> It will be years before the left will trust you lot again



Good. Perhaps now this bubble-wrapped "left" will fuck off and stick to the student politics and "clowns against reality" unicycle protesting that is about all its good for - other than discrediting socialist ideas through ridiculous posturing, that is.


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 8, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Since you like orgainsing a solidarity meeting for the xenophobes and little englanders who went on strike, any chance on putting the hat round for Carol Thatcher as well?.  Will you be selling Golliwogs in an attempt to redeem them, just as you are trying to redeem the buthers apron which infested the picket lines and fascist slogans like British Jobs for British workers which wer eon the placards?
> 
> It will be years before the left will trust you lot again



Oh do fuck off!!


----------



## dennisr (Feb 8, 2009)

JimPage said:


> It will be years before the left will trust you lot again



it will be a damn sight longer before the working class can trust idiots like you again. go on back to your fantasy anti-fascism jim - with that level of understanding you will be as useful an idiot in countering the bnp as you are countering backward illusions among workers


----------



## snadge (Feb 8, 2009)

I've come back to this thread to see if the wankstain had explained himself but he hasn't, for all those people who didn't see it, this Jim Page advocated violence against the strikers.


----------



## Spion (Feb 8, 2009)

snadge said:


> I've come back to this thread to see if the wankstain had explained himself but he hasn't, for all those people who didn't see it, this Jim Page advocated violence against the strikers.


Crikey, that's insane. On here? Got a link?


----------



## snadge (Feb 8, 2009)

Spion said:


> Crikey, that's insane. On here? Got a link?



earlier in this thread, he got caught on another forum.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

some analysis and discussion:
LINDSEY OIL REFINERY- WHAT WAS WON?
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3538

And from Bill Mullins (SP Industrial Organiser) on the CWI site:
http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/0701.html

"The Left

To their shame, some on the Left were completely taken in by the headlines in the capitalist press during the dispute, which highlighted the “British jobs for British workers” elements of this struggle. What they did not realise or refused to face up to was that the whole previous period had led to this battle. If this dispute developed a year ago, it is likely that it would not have developed as it did. What was new in the equation was the rapid onset of mass unemployment threatening every worker in Britain and across much of the globe.

The economic crisis has created a fear amongst workers not just for their jobs today but what jobs will there be for their children in the future. In the previous period, it was possible for the workers to get jobs on other sites.

A feature previously was the blacklisting of union activists on different sites, which led to localised battles in the past in the ongoing class struggle over who runs the sites - the management or the unions? Now the whole workforce of some 25,000 who specialise in skilled construction engineering on major projects, such as oil refineries and power stations, are becoming increasingly aware that things are changing. In fact, some 1,500, at least, are unemployed.

Recently, the trade unions were preparing, through shop stewards organising on a national level, to take on the bosses. But the whole thing was precipitated suddenly, as Keith Gibson explained in last week’s Socialist newspaper, when Total gave a contract to IREM before Christmas (or at least gave it to an American company, which, in turn, sub-contracted out to IREM).

The timing of this was not an accident. The Total bosses were using the downturn in the economy to give the work to a contractor who did not have to bother with trade unions, as most of the British contractors on the major building project were forced to do under normal circumstances.

The capitalist politicians, like Labour Business Minister, Pat McFadden, bleated that the principle of free movement had been breached by the deal. He meant “freedom” for the bosses to move labour across the continent, hiding under the EU laws backed up by the courts (and against the interests of .workers, everywhere) to undermine trade union organisation. This “freedom” has indeed been breached by the strike which has in the process struck a blow against the ‘race to the bottom’ and has introduced a more level playing field.

What it opens up now is the need for much more co-ordination amongst all the European unions and particularly the shop stewards organisations, at site level but also at national and indeed on an all-European level, as well to come together in a massive campaign to spread the victory of the Lindsey oil refinery workers across the whole country and the EU."


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

Among the replies to a linked thread ( http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3535 ) here - an important point:

_From the [second...] article linked to above is a piece by Alistair Tice. He says of the Lindsey strike:

"By Tuesday and Wednesday, although still a couple of union jack flags were seen, all the BJ4BW posters had gone. In their place were placards in Italian appealing to the Italian workers to join the strike and another which stated “Workers of the World Unite!” (as commented on by Seamus Milne in the Guardian newspaper)."

This cuts across the new variant on the mistaken view of the strikers and the movement behind them that started with the wrong slogan raised at the start of the strike. Something like: the strike has been a step forward for the Lindsey workers, but has generalised a reactionary slogan throughout the movement. I don’t buy that and it smacks of trying to justify a wrong position._

Maybe SW could have got some of the italian placards among the images used on its 'supportive' (sic) front page?? (to go with the belated petrition in support...?)


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

> The Left
> 
> To their shame, some on the Left were completely taken in by the headlines in the capitalist press during the dispute, which highlighted the “British jobs for British workers” elements of this struggle. What they did not realise or refused to face up to was that the whole previous period had led to this battle. If this dispute developed a year ago, it is likely that it would not have developed as it did. What was new in the equation was the rapid onset of mass unemployment threatening every worker in Britain and across much of the globe.



I think that is overegging the pudding somewhat. Unite both generated and supported nationalistic statements - their shop stewards gave public statements which could have and still could threaten to isolate British workers from much need EU-worker solidarity. 'The Left' saw the danger and had no choice but to speak out about those dangers. We are not out of the woods yet, and Unite need to rein in these tendencies, else be blamed for betraying those they pupport to represent.  

I cannot implore you enough to research the history of British Trades Unionism. Look at the Aliens Act of 1905. We do not want a repeat of the union support for the exclusion of 'aliens' in 1892 that led to the Aliens Act of 1905. Unite/Amicus need to drop their nationalist chauvinism.




			
				Voice from the Aliens: About the Anti-Alien Resolution of the Cardiff Trade Union Congress said:
			
		

> The cry against the foreigner is not merely peculiar to England; it is international. Everywhere he is the scapegoat for other's sins. Every class finds in him the enemy. So long as the Anti-Alien sentiment in this country was confined to politicians, wire-pullers, and individual working men, we, the organised aliens, took no heed; but when this ill-founded sentiment has been officially expressed by the organised working men of England, then we believe that it is time to lift our voice and argue the matter out.
> http://you-dont-look-anti-semitic.blogspot.com/2007/01/english-and-jewish-opposition-to.html


 
'The Left' strove to ensure that International Solidarity moved to the top of the agenda, recognised that liberal Europe had sold out over the Laval affaire, and pressed for the strikers to realise the impact their choice of slogan and expression was having abroad. 

'The Left' knew where Brown's slogan-trap had originated (NF/BUF) and hadn't seen it as racist or xenophobic. 

'The Left' also knew that without international solidarity these strikers would be vilified abroad, since the same worries about contract/agency work and rising unemployment are experienced by workers in other EU-states. 

'The Left' knows that with international solidarity, the workforce and unemployed of EU-states including Britain can achieve the changes to prevent social dumping. Europe-wide strikes will force the EU/State hand, if needs must. 

'The Left' knew that words are important, that translations of slogans and statements by shop stewards are what the others (workers abroad, unions abroad) see first, and these slogans would inform their initial opinions about the strikers here in Britain. 'The Left' knew that the recycled Brown/BUF/NF slogan came with an ugly baggage that gave the wrong message to our fellows abroad. 

I'm certain that 'The Left' are wholly pleased with the expansion from Brown/BUF/NF slogan to 'Workers of the World Unite!' and this was ever the aim of the constructive criticisms and wordy interventions.

All in all, the strike has achieved more than 102 jobs for the contract/agency construction workers who were laid off by Shaws prior at the end of 2008. It has brought opportunities for a Europe-wide solidarity to  the fore and increased awareness in the British public of the shady wage-undercutting practices of leading EU companies through their contract/agency employment. 

Much has been achieved, but there is still some way to go yet!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2009)

No, it _was_ the case. You might have been pure - others certainly were not.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, it _was_ the case. You might have been pure - others certainly were not.



I am only young, but my collective memory stretches back to the time when the British Brothers' League exploited fear in the working class and stirred up anti-foreigner sentiment, dividing the working class with protectionist slogans, marches, and demonstrations against 'the foreigner'.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Unite need to rein in these tendencies, else be blamed for betraying those they pupport to represent.



imo the 'left' who spent their time condemning the strike from a distance were either ignored or invisible to the workers on the ground. They cut themselves off from those workers and had no influence on turning the strike. But weve gone over this ground many times and probably best to 'agree to disagree'  The unite leadership played with echoing the reactionary demands. The left stewards on the ground turn that strike around while others, luckily on the sidelines, simply tried to paint the movement as a wholey reactionary (or - in the case of union tops 'tailending' in an empiric manner) which could not go anywhere positive - those sideline 'lefts' should at least recognise that they miscalculated what the actual existing mood and reasons behind the dispute were even if they cannot admit the mistaken tactics that resulted from that miscalculation.

I agree with your last point - its only a beginning, but that is obvious - at this moment in time we can say that, in turning that movement around, the real left on the ground have played an important role in the potential further direction that movement can go in.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I am only young, but my collective memory stretches back to the time when the exploited fear in the working class and stirred up anti-foreigner sentiment, dividing the working class with protectionist slogans, marches, and demonstrations against 'the foreigner'



which kind of misses the point folk like BA and me would both make - HOW we interviene can shape the direction of movements. We are all aware and all agree about the dangers of cul-de-sac nationalistic politics - it comes as no surprise. In fact - far from having some stereotype leftist view of the workers on the picket line we work from the basis of actual conciousness alongside them.

There was an element of artificial and abstract views of the 'working class' turning into thier mirror image - of an equally simplistic vision of a homogenous reactionary mob in the misreading of some sections of the so-called 'left' - luckily not those on the ground. I think those 'simplistic lefts' should be seriously questioned on the point


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, it _was_ the case. You might have been pure - others certainly were not.



Okay, okay. 

So educate me. 

Which other Unions in Britain are nationalist besides Unite? 

How nationalist are the CPs and SPs in Britain?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2009)

Leave off with the daft loaded questions please.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 9, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Okay, okay.
> 
> So educate me.
> 
> ...


No chance, butchers doesn't do answers, EVER.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No chance, butchers doesn't do answers, EVER.



is this irony on your part?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

I would appreciate an educated answer!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> I would appreciate an educated answer!



We were talking about the the dismissive and hostile (not critically supportive as some fo them claim) reaction of elements of the left to a series of important wildcat strikes in key sectors. You say that the left didn't react in the way i (and the text above that dennis posted) characterised some of them as acting, i say i think that you're attirbuting your own approach (which _did_ appear to be critically supportive) across the board and to those where it simply doesn't apply IMO.

You then say that two unions are nationalist and aks me what other ones are nationalist - come on, that's neither here nor there in relation to my point.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

We were talking about one thing, and now I'd like to briefly talk about another. You can go back to your tirade against borgeouis lefties soon enough 

Please educate rather than dismiss my asking the question. I find that patronising. 

Anyway, I thought Amicus/Unite were the same union. 
I thought that Amicus and the TGWU merged and became Unite. So really I just mean 'Unite', as in the newly merged Amicus and TGWU.  

I think given the history of Trades Unionism in Britain, that the question as to which unions are nationalistic are important, especially if we consider the statements made by Unite shop stewards. 

I also want to know which CPs and SPs in Britain tend towards nationalist chauvinism, if any.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> We were talking about one thing, and now I'd like to briefly talk about another.
> 
> Please educate rather than dismiss my asking the question. I find that patronising.
> 
> ...



I didn't dismiss the question. I a) didn't see the direct relavence to the particular issue we were talking about at that juncture (the reaction of some of the left to the strikes) and b) objected to the loaded nature of it. It's hardly an attempt at asking a balanced and neutral (as far as possible) question is it? It assumes a negative state of affairs (i.e you beat your wife) and asks how many others that applies to today (how many of you also beat your wife?). 

There are just far too many issues and questions jumbled up in this - for starters, unions are an integrative institution in contemporary capitalism, they're neccesarrily reformist and dependent upon the continuing functioning of capital, so their role is in part to support one capital in its competion with other capitals in order to benefit their own members - is this nationalist if the other capitals are from another state? Should they give up their defence of their own members in the name of a higher principle? Should the members of the union in the competing company? Should support only be given to those who reach the requisite awareness - decided by who and on what basis? External parties? Why?

Which brings us to another issue the unions, the left and the w/c are three seperate things, there is significant (but nowhere near total) overlap in the case of unions and the w/c but only really in that case - so all the comments that have been slipping between the strikers, the w/c and the left have been serving to muddy the picture IMO.

Questions about how far the strikes were nationalist, or how backward some strikers are not what people should be concentrating on here. They are the wrong questions. The right questions concern how the class logic of the conflict opened up space (and had to open up space) for a leftward movement and how rthis will play out in the future and ongoing disputes, why they took place in these particular industries and so on, why thousands of workers were prepared for the first time in years to openly flout anti-union laws and why no one was able to do a damn thing about it, how direct worker-to-worker contact outside of the usual official union channels spread the strikes nationally and so on These are the important things, the things we need to be clear on. Not all this rubbihs about nationalism or racism.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

Not the strikers - the Unite Union! 

What's the point of paying dues for leadership if they just lead you down a blind alley? 

Better that the rank and file make links to other EU-workers if their well-paid unions are too complacent to do so.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

A copy of a resolution going to my union branch AGM next week.

And yes, before Spion comes in and calls us various names from Horst Wessel to David McCalden  , the mover will also be critical of the original slogan of BJFBW.


This PCS branch notes with concern the continuing attempts by both government ministers and the Media to portray the striking workers at Lindsay Oil Refinery (LOR) as simply xenophobic and anti-foreigner. The BBC going that extra mile in misinformation by editing an interview with a Lindsay striker that, perhaps deliberately to undermine public support for the strikers, made him look like he was refusing to work with Portuguese and Italian workers. Contrast this with the unedited interview shown later on that night that gave a wholly different story to the one portrayed by the earlier news item. 
The continuing gross misrepresentation flies in the face of the demands from the LOR Strike Committee that was passed overwhelmingly by a mass meeting of those on strike which was as follows


*Re-instatement of sacked worker John McEwan.
*No victimisation of workers taking solidarity action. 
*All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI (National Agreement for the Engineering and Construction Industry) Agreement. 
*Union controlled registering of unemployed and locally skilled union members, with nominating rights as work becomes available. 
*Government and employer investment in proper training /
apprenticeships for new generation of construction workers - fight for
a future for young people. 
*All Immigrant labour to be unionised. 
*Trade Union assistance for immigrant workers - including
interpreters - and access to Trade Union advice - to promote active
integrated Trade Union Members.
*Build links with construction trade unions on the continent.

As DWP staff we recognise the continuing attempts by governments and multi-national companies to outsource work in an attempt drive down wages and attack hard won terms and conditions of workers in an attempt to keep costs down and profits up. The consistent attempts to pit British workers against their Italian counterparts by these companies in an attempt to take the heat of their own relentless attacks on workers rights is the where the LOR workers are really aiming their anger. The continuing demonisation of workers who take official and unofficial strike action as anti-foreigner and xenophobic will only add fuel to the fire and further play on peoples concerns in a world where the spectre of mass unemployment looms. 

This branch offers solidarity to those fighting to stop yet more attacks on their terms and conditions.
Supports the demands of the LOR Strike Committee and welcomes them in light of the continuing demonisation of the strikers by government and media.
Sends a message of solidarity to the LOR UNITE union branch and the LOR strike Committee.


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> And yes, before Spion comes in and calls us various names from Horst Wessel to David McCalden.


*laughs* you poor tender petal you 



Fedayn said:


> the mover will also be critical of the original slogan of BJFBW.


Why isn't it part of the resolution then? The resolution witters on about the portrayal of the strikers as xenophobes then ducks the chance to send a clear message of opposition to that slogan. Why leave it to the mover's preamble?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> *laughs* you poor tender petal you
> 
> Why isn't it part of the resolution then? The resolution witters on about the portrayal of the strikers as xenophobes then ducks the chance to send a clear message of opposition to that slogan. Why leave it to the mover's preamble?



Because it will be easier to criticise constructively rather than like spme mocking purist. Apologies if it's not upto scratch.... 

You'er a fucking beard stroker and a half aren't you?!


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Because it will be easier to criticise constructively rather than like spme mocking purist. Apologies if it's not upto scratch....


So the mover is prepared to criticise BJ4BW in his preamble but not in the resolution that the refinery workers will see?

The worst that can happen is that someone amends it out. You won't die.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> So the mover is prepared to criticise BJ4BW in his preamble but not in the resolution that the refinery workers will see?
> 
> The worst that can happen is that someone amends it out. You won't die.



Funnily enough no-one said we willl die, but hey you carry on stroke your beard issuing your purist communiques. 

Any idea when you'll finish that book of yours, 'How to win friends and influence people the Spion way'?

A very short book no doubt.


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Funnily enough no-one said we willl die, but hey you carry on stroke your beard issuing your purist communiques.
> 
> Any idea when you'll finish that book of yours, 'How to win friends and influence people the Spion way'?
> 
> A very short book no doubt.


Careful how you swing that handbag, love 

Anyway, that resolution, so you'll be leaving the criticism of BJ4BW in the spoken preamble rather than putting it in print where the refinery workers can see it then?


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> Careful how you swing that handbag, love
> 
> Anyway, that resolution, so you'll be leaving the criticism of BJ4BW in the spoken preamble rather than putting it in print where the refinery workers can see it then?



Yes, sorry if we don't dive right in and have a pop, but given the LOR Strike Committee NEVER argued for BJ4BW then i'm not gonna criticise them for it. There will be a clear criti when we send the message and speak to them. But wou carry on up there on purist mountain.


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Yes, sorry if we don't dive right in and have a pop, but given the LOR Strike Committee NEVER argued for BJ4BW


Then I don't understand why the mover is going to be critical of BJ4BW in their preamble. It's either worth tackling or it's not and the way you're suggesting they will proceed indicates that they're prepared to say something in the environment of their own union meeting that they're not prepared to say to the strikers.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> Then I don't understand why the mover is going to be critical of BJ4BW in their preamble. It's either worth tackling or it's not and the way you're suggesting they will proceed indicates that they're prepared to say something in the environment of their own union meeting that they're not prepared to say to the strikers.



Because it is imho important to clarify why our union is supporting the LOR Strike COmmitte, to ignore the isue would be stupid as everyone will have heard of/seen the banners and the headlines. Not to mention it could be counterproductive especially if there's no criticism of the slogan from a union well versed in dealing with racists etc in our workplace. 

It's a tactical issue Spion, remember tactics? The LOR Strike Committee never argued for the slogan, as such why criticise them for something they never did. However when the debate takes place it is undoubtedly an issue that will arise, as such to ignore it would be silly.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

Public meeting on lessons of the Lindsey oil refinery strike

7pm Friday 13 February, Small Hall, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW1, opposite Euston station.

A Joint meeting hosted by the Socialist Party and Respect (Renewal)
Speakers include: Keith Gibson, Lindsey strike committee
Jerry Hicks, left candidate for Unite (Amicus) general secretary

Leaflet for meet can be downloaded from here: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 9, 2009)

That meeting sounds like it should be good, dennisr. Not only will people be able to get reports directly from workers who were actually involved, there will almost certainly be some entertainment laid on by crazy sectarians denouncing everyone from the floor.


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 9, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I agree with your last point - its only a beginning, but that is obvious - at this moment in time we can say that, in turning that movement around, the real left on the ground have played an important role in the potential further direction that movement can go in.



Definitely! 

Euro-wide worker solidarity is v. important.
But after Euro-workers win against crazy contract/agency undercutting, then comes the fight against the contractors who will try another tactic and bring in non-Euro workers or something equally cynical. 

Did our lads make contact with the Swedish Union who fought and lost the Viking/Laval affaires?


----------



## Spion (Feb 9, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Because it is imho important to clarify why our union is supporting the LOR Strike COmmitte, to ignore the isue would be stupid as *everyone will have heard of/seen the banners and the headlines*. Not to mention it could be counterproductive especially if there's no criticism of the slogan from a union well versed in dealing with racists etc in our workplace.
> 
> It's a tactical issue Spion, remember tactics? *The LOR Strike Committee never argued for the slogan, as such why criticise them *for something they never did. However when the debate takes place it is undoubtedly an issue that will arise, as such to ignore it would be silly.


I've never said the strike cttee should be criticised for something they've not done. But as the first point of yours I've bolded makes clear, there was a clear BJ4BW sentiment evident among the strikers.

To not make a clear stand about a sentiment that was quite evident seems a bit daft to me, ignoring the elephant in the room. The slogan will almost certaily arise again and if the SP or similar is not in a position to 'absorb' it as it did last time then it could gain real legs.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> I've never said the strike cttee should be criticised for something they've not done. But as the first point of yours I've bolded makes clear, there was a clear BJ4BW sentiment evident among the strikers.
> 
> To not make a clear stand about a sentiment that was quite evident seems a bit daft to me, ignoring the elephant in the room. The slogan will almost certaily arise again and if the SP or similar is not in a position to 'absorb' it as it did last time then it could gain real legs.



S in a resolution supporting the LOR ST why make it an issue in the resolution when the point can be drawn in the debate. I don't have to tell the strike committee of the dangers of the BJ4BW, they're had to deal with it. it won't be ignored fear not.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2009)

Spion said:


> But as the first point of yours I've bolded makes clear, there was a clear BJ4BW sentiment evident among the strikers.



I think the point I c&p'ed from some other individual (post 1563) stands as does Feds above


----------



## Nigel (Feb 9, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> If anyone is interested in hearing about the dispute from the inside, there's a public meeting on in Friends Meeting House on Euston Road in London on Friday 13th February at 7 PM.
> 
> It's jointly organised by the Socialist Party and Respect and the speakers include Keith Gibson, who was a member of the strike committee at Lindsey, and Jerry Hicks, the left candidate for General Secretary of Amicus.



Is the ISG/Socialist Resistance supporting this, or have they got some funny line on it?

Was going to go up with one of their supporters to one of the other Wildcat Strikes, so would be interested to know their perspective.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> is this irony on your part?


 no that's when I'm pressing my shirty.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

belboid said:


> Most workers want to work close to home.  They dont actually want to travel thousands of miles for a job - one that is paid LESS than local workers have agreed (did you see the posts about the italian worker saying he got paid 1000 euro's less than his brit counterparts?).
> 
> Sourcing workers as locally as possible has always been a demand of workers in the industry, not to provide 'british jobs for british workers', but to give workers _anywhere_ preferable working conditions. That happens in itally as well as in britain.


 yes .. i really don't understand why people find this all so difficult! lol


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

strummerville said:


> Absolutely right. There is nothing xenophobic about employing locally, as many workers could be from other countries anyway. Where I live in Brighton, the local football club got planning permission to build its new stadium partly by saying it would create 100's of jobs for the local community. It is being built very near Moulscombe and Whitehawk, two of the poorest estates in the country. Spion's arguments remind me of the Thatcherites in the 80's arguing for the sort of economics that decimated local communities then.


 spot on .. cept the albion/falmer stadium is imho a con! imho they wanted it at falmer so as to in the future get add-ons .. the downs have been trashed enough as it is .. why did the board go for a daft option that was always going to be contreversial??  .. they should have gone for the station site or shoreham imho and it would be built by now!! and i doubt they would have employed local ( sorry for derail!)


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The other thing is, the 'solution'local jobs for local people, is an illusion.  Every single job in this country if it were legislated tomorrow to be given to local British living people, would do nothing to resolve the concerns of those workers about lack of jobs.  The responsibility for the shortage jobs does not lie with the mobility of workers, it lies with the bankers at this moment in time, and the capitalist system in general.  It is not that we can't have full employment, it is that the capitalists have chosen to rein back investment, because of the lack of profit.


 hi rmp3 .. look imho i think that the swp have lost all understanding of trade unionism and the w/c .. you talk of 'legislating' .. no one here is talking of legislating .. but WE are talking of workers action for jobs .. 

and we know all about WHY we are in the situation we are in .. but the issue is how to create  a TU and revsoc movement that can fight capital .. it will ONLY be built by supporting issues like this that empower the w/c and trade unions .. if the left denies the w/c the right to fight for themselves, theirs sons and daughters and family and freinds, as the SWP has done in this dispute, they will rightly ( and disasterously ) ignore not just the liberal left but all progressive ideas .. you are playing with fire


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Since you like orgainsing a solidarity meeting for the xenophobes and little englanders who went on strike, any chance on putting the hat round for Carol Thatcher as well?.  Will you be selling Golliwogs in an attempt to redeem them, just as you are trying to redeem the buthers apron which infested the picket lines and fascist slogans like British Jobs for British workers which wer eon the placards?
> 
> It will be years before the left will trust you lot again


is this post for real .. think JPS log in got nicked before and this is just way to daft for him .. surely!! :O :O


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> imo the 'left' who spent their time condemning the strike from a distance were either ignored or invisible to the workers on the ground. They cut themselves off from those workers and had no influence on turning the strike. But weve gone over this ground many times and probably best to 'agree to disagree'  The unite leadership played with echoing the reactionary demands. The left stewards on the ground turn that strike around while others, luckily on the sidelines, simply tried to paint the movement as a wholey reactionary (or - in the case of union tops 'tailending' in an empiric manner) which could not go anywhere positive - those sideline 'lefts' should at least recognise that they miscalculated what the actual existing mood and reasons behind the dispute were even if they cannot admit the mistaken tactics that resulted from that miscalculation.
> 
> I agree with your last point - its only a beginning, but that is obvious - at this moment in time we can say that, in turning that movement around, the real left on the ground have played an important role in the potential further direction that movement can go in.


 yes .. and tangent is not being honest .. the 'left' he refers to ( the swp/wp) did not support critically the strikes but actually attacked them


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't dismiss the question. I a) didn't see the direct relavence to the particular issue we were talking about at that juncture (the reaction of some of the left to the strikes) and b) objected to the loaded nature of it. It's hardly an attempt at asking a balanced and neutral (as far as possible) question is it? It assumes a negative state of affairs (i.e you beat your wife) and asks how many others that applies to today (how many of you also beat your wife?).
> 
> There are just far too many issues and questions jumbled up in this - for starters, unions are an integrative institution in contemporary capitalism, they're neccesarrily reformist and dependent upon the continuing functioning of capital, so their role is in part to support one capital in its competion with other capitals in order to benefit their own members - is this nationalist if the other capitals are from another state? Should they give up their defence of their own members in the name of a higher principle? Should the members of the union in the competing company? Should support only be given to those who reach the requisite awareness - decided by who and on what basis? External parties? Why?
> 
> ...


absolutely .. the liberal left here .. spion rmp tangent .. really seem to not understand the basics .. the simple dynamics of w/c struggle and trade unions ..


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> absolutely .. *the liberal left here .. spion *rmp tangent .. really seem to not understand the basics .. the simple dynamics of w/c struggle and trade unions ..


LOLz at the bolded bit. You're such a funny man 

But seriously, you mistake understanding the dynamics etc for simply tailing the existing consciousness of the w/c. You have nothing to add to what is already happening.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> LOLz at the bolded bit. You're such a funny man
> 
> But seriously, you mistake understanding the dynamics etc for simply tailing the existing consciousness of the w/c. You have nothing to add to what is already happening.


 tailending? lol .. you are not even in the game lol .. what actually IS your political activity spion?


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> tailending? lol .. you are not even in the game lol .. what actually IS your political activity spion?


So, no answer to the charge other than 'what do you do?' Says it all really


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> So, no answer to the charge other than 'what do you do?' Says it all really



given the 'charge' has been answered in countless posts i imagine he has given up trying to take you seriously.

any excuse to do nothing and simply fantasise, ehh spion?

so, you the joker with the 'Johnny Void' blog, fella?


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> given the 'charge' has been answered in countless posts i imagine he has given up trying to take you seriously.
> 
> any excuse to do nothing and simply fantasise, ehh spion?
> 
> so, you the joker with the 'Johnny Void' blog, fella?


What do you do exactly?


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> so, you the joker with the 'Johnny Void' blog, fella?


You what?


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> given the 'charge' has been answered in countless posts i imagine he has given up trying to take you seriously.
> 
> any excuse to do nothing and simply fantasise, ehh spion?


I've done plenty. I was a toolmaker for half my working life. I've had the hard arguments so I know it when I see a bottler


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> What do you do exactly?



building sites 7 years.
print 12+ years (give or take 6-7 months working holiday as a chef of all things...)
layout last 7 years

or political work where you would like me to begin?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> I've done plenty. I was a toolmaker for half my working life. I've had the hard arguments so I know it when I see a bottler




'bottler' - i think fantasist is definately the correct term for you. 
(to clarify for the hard of thinking: its your politics i'm talking about - i couldn't give a fuck if you claim to have been a horny-handed son of toil at any point - that has not relvence whatsoever)

you really are a complete idiot arn't you? 

so what have i 'bottled' then you spanner??


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

come on hurry up - bottled what dicksplash???


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> 'bottler' - i think fantasist is definately the correct term for you.
> 
> you really are a complete idiot arn't you?
> 
> so what have i 'bottled' then you spanner??


This whole thread has been about your organisation bottling it. Fedayn produced another example yesterday on another thread with that ludicrous self congratulatory resolution where he admitted the mover would criticise BJ4BW in his spoken preamble but that it was not in the resolution the refinery workers would see if it was passed. That counts as bottling it in my book.


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

dennisr said:


> come on hurry up - bottled what dicksplash???


LOLz - Settle down you nutcase


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> This whole thread has been about your organisation bottling it. Fedayn produced another example yesterday on another thread with that ludicrous self congratulatory resolution where he admitted the mover would criticise BJ4BW in his spoken preamble but that it was not in the resolution the refinery workers would see if it was passed. That counts as bottling it in my book.



i'm afraid the 'the bottlers' stood on the sidelines with their critical irrelevance - missing the point.

bit of a late bid for attention on your part isn't it? - the arrogance of your post hides cowardice


----------



## Spion (Feb 10, 2009)

This issue won't go away. We'll have the same arguments again - and the SP might not be on hand to provide the same cover next time.

Goodnight. Sleep well


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> This whole thread has been about your organisation bottling it. Fedayn produced another example yesterday on another thread with that ludicrous self congratulatory resolution where he admitted the mover would criticise BJ4BW in his spoken preamble but that it was not in the resolution the refinery workers would see if it was passed. That counts as bottling it in my book.



Bottling what exactly? 'Ludicrously self congratulatory' quite how is it thus you? Who is congratulating themselves?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 10, 2009)

Spion said:


> This issue won't go away. We'll have the same arguments again - and the SP might not be on hand to provide the same cover next time.
> 
> Goodnight. Sleep well



the issue being that the working class arn't ready formed revolutionaries? that they reflect to an extent the society in which they live? - probably

night, night


----------



## dennisr (Feb 11, 2009)

An analysis if the issues behind the dispute (in english) from rifondazione 

THE IREM-EAST LINDSEY CASE. UNITED AGAINST FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICE

http://home.rifondazione.it/xisttest/content/view/4730/310/


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 11, 2009)

dennisr said:


> the issue being that the working class arn't ready formed revolutionaries? that they reflect to an extent the society in which they live? - probably
> 
> night, night



End of discussion, really. As was said earlier, the 'bottlers' are the ones who opted out of  support for the strikers to defend TU organisation on all major Refineries and Construction projects.

The SP role was crucial and correct in the LOR dispute.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> My complaint:



Just had a reply:



> Dear Mr _________
> 
> 
> Thank you for your email.
> ...


So, basically "it was OK to lie because he said 'I-ties'."  Nothing about giving any prominence to a retraction or apology, and a downright lie about the intention to misrepresent the striker's views.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2009)

sorry seems to be the easiest word these days.


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Just had a reply:
> 
> So, basically "it was OK to lie because he said 'I-ties'."  Nothing about giving any prominence to a retraction or apology, and a downright lie about the intention to misrepresent the striker's views.




Snap! Exact same email.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2009)

they're not sorry enough to put their apology on their 'recent complaints' page tho, i see.  unlike something about jo brand from QI (which I watched and have no idea what they're referring to!)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 11, 2009)

Slandering militant workers is part of a long tradition at the Bosses Broadcasting Corporation - going right back to the General Strike of 1926 when they broadcasted and supported Stanley Baldwin whilst giving no voice to the striking workers. Don't get me wrong, they have some great shows and are far better than any of the private broadcasters but when it comes to class struggle the veneer of neutrality and objectivity disappears faster than you could say Orgreave.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 11, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> ...when it comes to class struggle the veneer of neutrality and objectivity disappears faster than you could say Orgreave.



Yep absolutely, and to think how desperately 'neutral' they claimed they needed to be sen as -  the excuse for refusing to air the Gaza humanitarian charity appeal


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 11, 2009)

They don't get the local regiment to shoot strikers anymore - the agencies just replace the workers (now I hear Hungarian workers are being brought in to replace Vange and Motherwell strikers who are being sacked for striking?).


----------



## dennisr (Feb 11, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> They don't get the local regiment to shoot strikers anymore - the agencies just replace the workers (now I hear Hungarian workers are being brought in to replace Vange and Motherwell strikers who are being sacked for striking?).



yep, theres a wee report here on whats happening:
*Motherwell Bridge bosses declare war on striking workers*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/6906

A wee flavour:
_At this point the picketers marched to the Jobs Centre in Newark town. In a bizarre twist the 250 jobs on site are advertised in the office windows! A local journalist then asked workers to pose for a picture in front of the Job Centre window with the Union Jack. A Socialist Party supporter objected to this saying the Union Jack was not the flag of the picketers and instead that a UNITE banner should be used. This lead to some discussion between workers so in the end a picture was be taken with workers holding a copy of the Socialist!_
....
_It is now becoming clear that the Lindsey strike was only the opening clash in an ongoing and serious battle between workers and bosses in the construction industry. United action won the first round for the workers but in the absence of a general offensive across the industry against the use of non union migrant labour to undermine wages and conditions, this victory will only be temporary._


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 11, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Just had a reply:
> 
> So, basically "it was OK to lie because he said 'I-ties'."  Nothing about giving any prominence to a retraction or apology, and a downright lie about the intention to misrepresent the striker's views.



Yeah, but "I-ties" - what the fuck is "I-ties"?

I've never heard it before


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 11, 2009)

_'I ties' _is short for* It*alians.  It is quite an old expression and not necessarily meant to be derogatory although often is.


----------



## belboid (Feb 11, 2009)

i think DC is just referring to the fact that it is normally spelt 'eyeties'


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Analysis - What now then?

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6881

*Lindsey oil refinery strike - Workers score important victory*
Socialist Party industrial organiser Bill Mullins writes on the deal done between the Lindsey oil refinery strike committee and the Total oil company, the refinery owners.

extract:
_"In a major breakthrough, part of the deal allows for the shop stewards to check that the jobs filled by the Italian and Portuguese workers are on the same conditions as the local workers covered by the NAECI agreement. The Lindsey oil refinery is what is known as a 'blue book' site and all workers on it should be covered by the NAECI agreement.

This means in practice that the union-organised workers will be working alongside the IREM-employed Italian workers and will be able to "audit" whether or not this is the case.

This was a fundamental demand of the strikers when they adopted a central list of demands at the mass meetings: "All workers in UK to be covered by NAECI Agreement and all immigrant labour to be unionised".

...

"What the Lindsey strikers were demanding quite correctly is a form of pre-entry closed shop. That means that if the contractors on site need more labour then they have to go to the union for this labour from its unemployed register. In other words you have to be in the union to be on the register.

The alternative to trade union control over 'hire and fire' is the bosses having that right to hire and fire instead - and who will they give jobs to? Not the trade union activists. As is too often the case, a bosses' black-list is widely used in the construction industry. The fight for this demand to be put into practice will be part of the ongoing struggle between the workers and the bosses. This is a struggle over who controls the workplace and, therefore, in whose interests the workplace is run.

To their shame, some on the left were completely taken in by the headlines in the capitalist press which highlighted the "British jobs for British workers" element of this struggle. What they did not realise, or refused to face up to, was that the whole previous period has led to this battle. If this had developed a year ago then it is likely that it would not have happened as it did. What was new in the equation was the rapid onset of mass unemployment, threatening every worker in Britain and across much of the globe._

And under this article one on the role played by the SP - contrary to the way some posters have tried to present it here


----------



## free spirit (Feb 12, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Just had a reply:
> 
> So, basically "it was OK to lie because he said 'I-ties'."  Nothing about giving any prominence to a retraction or apology, and a downright lie about the intention to misrepresent the striker's views.


I just got forwarded that (seems the email list worked out), don't seem to have had one myself though

OFCOM?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 12, 2009)

belboid said:


> i think DC is just referring to the fact that it is normally spelt 'eyeties'


Indeed.  But more to the point its use is being seized upon as the excuse for deliberate distortion and misrepresentation.

This is what comes of middle class liberals doing 'anti-discriminatory behaviour' workshops, and thinking that 'racism' consists of using the wrong terms.  Whereas stitching up workers is fine.


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2009)

dennisr said:


> "What the Lindsey strikers were demanding quite correctly is a form of pre-entry closed shop. That means that if the contractors on site need more labour then they have to go to the union for this labour from its unemployed register. In other words you have to be in the union to be on the register.



isd there any real _evidence_ that a pre-entry closed shop of that form is in the interests of the working class as a whole?  It clearly shifts power and influence into the hands of the trades union officials and the cadres who jockey for position and influence within the unions, so it's good for them.  It may even benefit those fortunate enough to have the skills or contacts necessary to become members.  But for the rest- those, the majority, on the outside rather than the inside- what's the benefit?


----------



## ymu (Feb 12, 2009)

free spirit said:


> I just got forwarded that (seems the email list worked out), don't seem to have had one myself though
> 
> OFCOM?


Same e-mail as danny and angel here.

Not really satisfactory. I think I'll ask them when they're going to air an apology to the striker concerned.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

newbie said:


> isd there any real _evidence_ that a pre-entry closed shop of that form is in the interests of the working class as a whole?  It clearly shifts power and influence into the hands of the trades union officials and the cadres who jockey for position and influence within the unions, so it's good for them.  It may even benefit those fortunate enough to have the skills or contacts necessary to become members.  But for the rest- those, the majority, on the outside rather than the inside- what's the benefit?



its a concrete step forward for a group of concious unionised workers in what is a concrete situation - not some abstract demand for the entire working class mate.

For that majority - those on the outside - all they can gain is the lesson learnt (+plus they can join the union if they are workers in that trade of course) - something like: "if we are to defend OUR jobs in this climate against our bosses who are doing the exact same thing as those bosses - then that Lindsey lots approach is the way to do it - its puts a stop to the bosses plans to undercut wages and conditions using cheap labour - puts us back in some control over our working conditions - if we fight for it that is"

trade union officials are elected, so can be held accountable, bosses arn't

did you read the rest of the article linked to newbie? what do you think?


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2009)

dennisr said:


> did you read the rest of the article linked to newbie? what do you think?



bit long  

the demand for closed shops is really the only part I struggle with.  It might be a personal thing- I grew up on an estate where the homes were tied to the factory, and the factory was a closed shop. My parents hated that, which has inevitably coloured my view. Then I worked for a while in pre-entry closed shops as I watched the 70s develop into the 80s, and I didn't much like what I saw. 

TU officials may be elected but it's idle to believe that's necessarily a process of pure democracy, and after election there can be an awful lot of concentrated power, as well as some rather murky power-behind-the-throne manoeuvrings.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not deadset against closed shops- fundamentally I'm for workers organising however they want- but as a general political direction I'm not convinced it does any more than favour the interests of the few over those of the many.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

newbie said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not deadset against closed shops- fundamentally I'm for workers organising however they want- but as a general political direction I'm not convinced it does any more than favour the interests of the few over those of the many.



Yep, I can see where you are coming from. I've worked in the print trade for (well...) far too long and there is still older union members you meet who talk up stories about the 'good old days' in fleet street on the national papers - when the pecs meant quite a bit extra was squeezed out of the employers when was strictly necessary. I did wonder though, would I have ever have got into the trade if those folk still had the say-so? Having said that - I could have gone through a proper apprenticeship with proper job prospects at the end of it as a result of going through the union. More than that I would not be working the way I do now - self-employed - which means no pension, no holiday, no sick pay and no pay when you are not needed, wages cut because you are in competition with everybody else to an extent. So which is better for me as someone in the trade?

I think you have to compare the interests of those workers at Lindsey to the interests of the bosses who had tried to replace them though. They are now in a much better position to retain previously agreed deals on wages and conditions + ensure its not being undercut by cheap labour. They are therefore also improving the position the Italian workers on the site face as well.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Feb 12, 2009)

http://jesshurd.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/daily-star-joins-british-jobs-campaign.html


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> http://jesshurd.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/daily-star-joins-british-jobs-campaign.html



appropriate pic of Simpson the sleazy bureaucrat


----------



## Spion (Feb 12, 2009)

There needs to be a slogan as concise as BJ4BW to counter the dangers it presents.

I've yet to see one, or think of one, tbh. Bearfacts did *its* job well in getting those BJ4BW placards out there. Our side needs to better them


----------



## newbie (Feb 12, 2009)

dennisr said:


> More than that I would not be working the way I do now - self-employed - which means no pension, no holiday, no sick pay and no pay when you are not needed, wages cut because you are in competition with everybody else to an extent. So which is better for me as someone in the trade?



If only I knew... I'm also self employed and I'm currently watching some of the people I work for go bankrupt... I still have some work while their permies are going to sign on. Other people have reasonably secure jobs and pay/conditions. Who knows who is better placed?

Thing is we're not in the old days any more, where your father could get you an apprenticeship and a union ticket and a trade, possibly even a job, which would last for life. Where most people worked in big workplaces for large employers and had clear common interests. These days there are myriad ways of short-term contracting, a huge sector of tiny workplaces and little certainty that skills (or whole trades) won't be obsolete before the end of the week.  It's not so clear what's in the common interest any more.  

Personally I can't see demands for closed shops to maintain pay & conditions resonating outside of some particular workplaces.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> There needs to be a slogan as concise as BJ4BW to counter the dangers it presents.
> 
> I've yet to see one, or think of one, tbh. Bearfacts did *its* job well in getting those BJ4BW placards out there. Our side needs to better them



As the Lindsey shop steward said:
"Trade union jobs, pay and conditions for all workers" should be the slogan. And how about "Stop the race to the Bottom"

Can't see the press taking that one up though


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

newbie said:


> If only I knew... I'm also self employed and I'm currently watching some of the people I work for go bankrupt... I still have some work while their permies are going to sign on. Other people have reasonably secure jobs and pay/conditions. Who knows who is better placed?



Yep, I've seen a bit of that. Weirdly I am in a position of doing really well at the moment! ( *touches wood* ) admitedly only by doing a 10-12 hour day - but I'm the exception rather than the rule.

Having said that my dad's a self-employed builder - he is looking at bankruptcy and loosing his house so I'm trying to bail him out at the mo. Most of my family are builders (or related trades that depend on the work) and, outside of london, the work's just evaporated.

I can fully understand folk doing their best to secure their jobs - the alternative's not good


----------



## Nigel (Feb 12, 2009)

If you are working ten to twelve hours a day, how is it that you are on here all the time?


----------



## JimPage (Feb 12, 2009)

Noticed the reactionaries who went on strike yesterday at Staythorpe power station, based on racist lies about foreigners taking "their" jobs or undercut "their" wages (both proven lies, and you know it) were still carrying their Union Jacks, all "ironically" of course

When exactly will fools keep on defending these people? You are making the left look a laughing stock, as well as putting the cause of Socialist Unity back ears. Do you really think people will have anything to do with those who support these strikes in the forseeable future


----------



## glenquagmire (Feb 12, 2009)

people?

which people?


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 12, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Noticed the reactionaries who went on strike yesterday at Staythorpe power station, based on racist lies about foreigners taking "their" jobs or undercut "their" wages (both proven lies, and you know it) were still carrying their Union Jacks, all "ironically" of course
> 
> When exactly will fools keep on defending these people? You are making the left look a laughing stock, as well as putting the cause of Socialist Unity back ears. Do you really think people will have anything to do with those who support these strikes in the forseeable future



Aren't they unemployed, those striking at Staythorpe?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2009)

They are now.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Nigel said:


> If you are working ten to twelve hours a day, how is it that you are on here all the time?



Statistics for dennisr - average posting1.81 posts a day - I think i can manage that and a day job, especially given the computer sitting in front of me all day


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Noticed the reactionaries who went on strike yesterday at Staythorpe power station, based on racist lies about foreigners taking "their" jobs or undercut "their" wages (both proven lies, and you know it) were still carrying their Union Jacks, all "ironically" of course
> 
> When exactly will fools keep on defending these people? You are making the left look a laughing stock, as well as putting the cause of Socialist Unity back ears. Do you really think people will have anything to do with those who support these strikes in the forseeable future



Yep, there still was a couple of union jacks - well they must all be card carrying fash then mustn't they?? - them and the Sri Lankan demonstrators carrying the same union jacks on their demo??? - nazi stormtrooper material the lot of them.

Wake up you idiot

What newspaper did you read about these events in? Read the links posted to if you want some facts as opposed to your pre-conceived fantasies. But you made you mind up right at the beginning, condemning the workers involved, and can't back down now can you? Dshonestly you feel the need to keep misrepresenting those workers. Its all online - you made your presumptions clear.

Misrepresenting workers, lining up with the likes of Mandelson against trade unionists - while talking the talk about "Socialist Unity" - you wouldn't have a clue - keep digging. I spent well over 20 years 'fighting fascism' there was always a layer of posturers - and thats what you smell badly of so go fuck yourself Jimmy.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Lets remind you of what you said Jim:
Socialist Unity Website - 30 Jan around 10 am (beginning of the second day of the strike):

Jim Page says:
_"I think the first action is to expel any shop stewards involved here forthwith, and for the union leaders to condemn this strike

Secondly, its solidarity action with the foreign workers, making it clear they are welcome here

Thirdly, *confronting the racists on the picket line, just as we would a BNP mobilisation*"_

Now I know there's more than one Jim Page - but this one is clearly you.

There were plenty of other idiots in that site - but you took the biscuit


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2009)

Reading through the later comments we get this on the same thread:

_"To add - in fact the comment by “Jim Page” was made by the BNP’s Lee Barnes. If you’ve got the IP address of the idiot please mail it to me."_

So was it you or not - the recent post here says it could well be. I hope its not and that this fella is right???


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 12, 2009)

dennisr said:


> An analysis if the issues behind the dispute (in english) from rifondazione
> 
> THE IREM-EAST LINDSEY CASE. UNITED AGAINST FREE MOVEMENT OF SERVICE
> 
> http://home.rifondazione.it/xisttest/content/view/4730/310/


 spot on ..


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 12, 2009)

dennisr said:


> its a concrete step forward for a group of concious unionised workers in what is a concrete situation - not some abstract demand for the entire working class mate.
> 
> For that majority - those on the outside - all they can gain is the lesson learnt (+plus they can join the union if they are workers in that trade of course) - something like: "if we are to defend OUR jobs in this climate against our bosses who are doing the exact same thing as those bosses - then that Lindsey lots approach is the way to do it - its puts a stop to the bosses plans to undercut wages and conditions using cheap labour - puts us back in some control over our working conditions - if we fight for it that is"
> 
> trade union officials are elected, so can be held accountable, bosses arn't


 spot on ..


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 12, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Noticed the reactionaries who went on strike yesterday at Staythorpe power station, based on racist lies about foreigners taking "their" jobs or undercut "their" wages (both proven lies, and you know it) were still carrying their Union Jacks, all "ironically" of course
> 
> When exactly will fools keep on defending these people? You are making the left look a laughing stock, as well as putting the cause of Socialist Unity back ears. Do you really think people will have anything to do with those who support these strikes in the forseeable future



just out of interest but what country do you live in jim? as i see it these workers live in britain and whenever you get any outpouring/demo/event in this country people get out flags .. so either jacks or georges ( i don't like it but then again i'll be dressed in red and green on saturday!) .. it is the same in pretty well all countries where socialism/anarchism has disapperred  .. you deny people nationalism they will become fascists .. give people an alternative and nationalism will disappear up its own arse .. and it does NOT make them bad people .. it does not mean their dispute is wrong .. read the rifondazione article if you don't trust dennisr/sp or me and my @workerism and see what they say .. these strikes are against neoliberalism and your left's criticisms embaress us all


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Noticed the reactionaries who went on strike yesterday at Staythorpe power station, based on racist lies about foreigners taking "their" jobs or undercut "their" wages (both proven lies, and you know it) were still carrying their Union Jacks, all "ironically" of course
> 
> When exactly will fools keep on defending these people? You are making the left look a laughing stock, as well as putting the cause of Socialist Unity back ears. Do you really think people will have anything to do with those who support these strikes in the forseeable future



Sorry to see you like this jim. Get well soon.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 13, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> if you don't trust dennisr/sp or me and my @workerism and see what they say .. these strikes are against neoliberalism and your left's criticisms embaress us all



more than that jim - in your case. 

if you are the anti-fascist you claim to be you had better go through other channels providing some proof - trusted people who know your real identity or similar who can vouch for you - so other anti-fascists can get some inkling if you are for real or not. as an anti-fascist, jim you understand the need for security like.

We really do need some clarification on this, jim. The thread is here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3494

(ps this is the first of many threads on the subject - I'd recommend folk read others for better clarification of the developing dispute at the time if thier intention is to read through the endless arguements that result)


----------



## dennisr (Feb 13, 2009)

The underlying legal issues - the Institute for Employment Rights sheds some light on them
http://www.ier.org.uk/system/files/Decisions+of+the+ECJ+and+implications+for+UK+laws_0.pdf

http://www.ier.org.uk/


----------



## ymu (Feb 13, 2009)

Got around to responding to the BBC complaints people.



> Dear Helen
> 
> Thanks for this, but it's not really good enough is it?
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 13, 2009)

> The BBC is not a propaganda unit and in this case the standard of journalism displayed fell far far short of acceptable.



Well played ymu, because although we know fine that the BBC is a propaganda unit, that's not how the operatives see themselves.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 13, 2009)

Ok, you have to read between the lines here (it is the telegraph after all with a somewhat different agenda to that of the working class...). But just goes to show how far ahead the trade union rank and fie were over their so-called leaders:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-for-Italian-workers-in-British-jobs-row.html

*Union agreed working conditions for Italian workers in ‘British jobs’ row*, 7th February


----------



## JimPage (Feb 13, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> just out of interest but what country do you live in jim? as i see it these workers live in britain and whenever you get any outpouring/demo/event in this country people get out flags .. so either jacks or georges ( i don't like it but then again i'll be dressed in red and green on saturday!) .. it is the same in pretty well all countries where socialism/anarchism has disapperred  .. you deny people nationalism they will become fascists .. give people an alternative and nationalism will disappear up its own arse .. and it does NOT make them bad people .. it does not mean their dispute is wrong .. read the rifondazione article if you don't trust dennisr/sp or me and my @workerism and see what they say .. these strikes are against neoliberalism and your left's criticisms embaress us all



Scotland- which may have something to do with my revulsion of the Union Jack, those who crry it or defend it, and all it stands for. It is clear what the Union Jack stands for in this context- and to carry it on a picket line is a nationalist act. 

It is the left coming itelf that there was anything progressive here that riles me. There simply wasnt, whatever the SP say. This strike was as progressive as the Ulster Workers Strike was

The end result of this strike- pictures on TV of migrants workers flying home to portugal , too scared to remain in britian because of this strike


----------



## JimPage (Feb 13, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Lets remind you of what you said Jim:
> Socialist Unity Website - 30 Jan around 10 am (beginning of the second day of the strike):
> 
> Jim Page says:
> ...



Third was the heat of the moment, which I regret saying.  I stand by one and two

Hve you realised yet that your position is very much a small minority position on the left yet? Most of the sensible left organsisations- WP/AWL/SWP were against the reasons behind this strike, with the SP and CPB being minorities here


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2009)

JimPage said:


> the sensible left organsisations- WP/AWL/SWP


----------



## penderyn2000 (Feb 13, 2009)

Apologies if anyone has already posted a link to this (don't have time to read 67 pages of posts), but Prof Gregor Gall's comprehensive report of the strike is up at http://radicalsocialist.org/forum.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Most of the sensible left organsisations- WP/AWL/SWP



 

oh what a hypocrite.  

The AWL rapidly changed their position, of course, once they'd read something other than the media bullshit.  WP took a bit longer to change their position, but did so too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2009)

It's what the left _says_ that's important not what the w/c is _doing_.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 13, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It's what the left _says_ that's important not what the w/c is _doing_.



exactly 

i note - no replies on the substance of what has been posted throughout this thread. 'doomed to repeat history' for all your fained anti-fascist interest, jim.

"heat of the moment" isn't good enough

so you admit it was you, jim - what a fucking idiot you turned out to be. tailing the idiocy of the UAF approach uncritically wasn't good enough - now you have to attack workers in struggle. Ulster strike my arse.


----------



## treelover (Feb 13, 2009)

> Most of the sensible left organsisations- WP/AWL/SWP were against the reasons behind this strike, with the SP and CPB being minorities her




The SWP, 'sensible left', are you delusional?


----------



## ymu (Feb 13, 2009)

Quick response to my follow-up e-mail.



> Thank you for your email. I don't think there is anything I can usefully add to what I have already said, nor do I think it would be proportionate to broadcast an apology. However, if you wish to pursue your complaint it is open to you do so by contacting the Editorial Complaints Unit, which investigates complaints independently of programme-makers. The address is: Editorial Complaints Unit, Room 5168, White City Building, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TQ. If you'd like more information about the BBC's complaints handling process, you may like to visit our website, www.bbc.co.uk/complaints.
> 
> Yours sincerely
> Helen Boaden
> Director, BBC News


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 13, 2009)

AWL aren't even left, lol.


----------



## JimPage (Feb 13, 2009)

dennisr said:


> exactly
> 
> i note - no replies on the substance of what has been posted throughout this thread. 'doomed to repeat history' for all your fained anti-fascist interest, jim.
> 
> ...



Your posts on the whole dont make sense, try to make your ideas more coherent before annoying me in the future, and i might be arsed to reply to them 

Well heat of the moment it was- not that I need to justify myself to you in any event. Who do you think you are?.

As to failing to reply to posts of substance- as and when i see something worth replying to, i will. As it stands, you have failed to respond to a single point I have made in a coherent manner


----------



## JimPage (Feb 13, 2009)

belboid said:


> oh what a hypocrite.
> 
> The AWL rapidly changed their position, of course, once they'd read something other than the media bullshit.  WP took a bit longer to change their position, but did so too.



Like it or not, these groups represent the great majority of the membership  of the left at present- as well as the wider Labour and Trades uniosn momvement which rejected the strike and the message 

The support for the strike was from a minority on the left. I am far from alone in questioning the reasons behind this strike


----------



## BarryB (Feb 13, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Like it or not, these groups represent the great majority of the membership  of the left at present- as well as the wider Labour and Trades uniosn momvement which rejected the strike and the message
> 
> The support for the strike was from a minority on the left. I am far from alone in questioning the reasons behind this strike



What prove have you that the wider Labour and Trade Union movement rejected the strike?

BarryB


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2009)

The combined AWL and WP membership being....? (1000 max?)  SWPs haemorrhaging year by year...

And you're lining up Mandelson et al on your side (suspect as with BarryB you're not speaking on behalf of anything like a majority of ordinary Labour members, let alone voters )

Moribund politics.  Corpse in the mouth.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 13, 2009)

1000? Are you mental? Nearer to 200 i think.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 13, 2009)

LOL maybe I did get far too generous

Combined will be more than 200 though (only 20-30 from WP granted, but AWL are doing particular shit at recruiting from No Sweat and other fronts if they can't muster 300-400)


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2009)

200 combined??!!  150 more like, 170 tops.. AWL aren't doing that well out of No Sweat. 100-120 awl, 40-50 WP.

Jim's 'great majority of the membership of the left' just means SWP really, all the other groups combined probly only just equal them. So his comment really meaningless, as well as pointless.

And the (more important) statement that 'the wider Labour and Trades uniosn momvement' also rejected the strike is completely and utterly untrue.


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 14, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Most of the sensible left organsisations- WP/AWL/SWP were against the reasons behind this strike, with the SP and CPB being minorities here





:

I laughed so much I fell of the toilet!!


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 14, 2009)

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/t...he-firms-bidding-for-the-work-84229-22893820/

"He walked out because he says foreign companies being awarded contracts in the UK are employing foreign workers because they are cheaper to employ than British workers.

He said when a foreign company employs a foreign worker they are not abiding by the pay and conditions agreed by UK unions which makes British workers more expensive to employ.

And he said if foreign companies were forced to abide by the rules, there would be no need for them to employ foreign workers."


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 14, 2009)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...eful-campaign-hide-truth-foreign-workers.html

note the photo but also "..In a sober release, which made no political comment whatsoever, the ONS yesterday pointed out the total number of non-UK born workers increased by 214,000 - to 3.8 million - in the year to December.
At the same time the number of UK-born workers in employment fell by 278,000 to 25.6 million, as the country slid into recession." 


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96af4dee-f891-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 14, 2009)

the bosses like free movement fo labour! http://www.personneltoday.com/artic...nofficial-strikes-protectionism-wont-pay.html


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 14, 2009)

better article from SWP http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17079 though this made me laugh "..On catching sight of Socialist Worker’s headline, Blame the Bosses Not Foreign Workers, one blurted out, “That’s what we’ve been saying all along!” .. indeed but why then did the SWP not accept this???????

linked from http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3566 which has been doing a very good job around these strikes


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 14, 2009)

and hot of the press a report of last nights meeting http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/report-on-oil-refinery-strikes-meeting/


----------



## dennisr (Feb 14, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> better article from SWP - this made me laugh "..On catching sight of Socialist Worker’s headline, Blame the Bosses Not Foreign Workers, one blurted out, “That’s what we’ve been saying all along!” .. indeed but why then did the SWP not accept this???????



and the sentence could have continued "... while our erstwhile 'comrades' in the SWP were slagging us off as being a bunch of reactionaries and racists"

You going to apologise Jim and Co???


----------



## dennisr (Feb 14, 2009)

JimPage said:


> Your posts on the whole dont make sense, try to make your ideas more coherent before annoying me in the future, and i might be arsed to reply to them
> 
> Well heat of the moment it was- not that I need to justify myself to you in any event. Who do you think you are?.
> 
> As to failing to reply to posts of substance- as and when i see something worth replying to, i will. As it stands, you have failed to respond to a single point I have made in a coherent manner



You are a pathetic liar.

You demanded that I show where you had said you would be willing to break the strikes physically, as I had accused you of - I showed exactly where you said that and you have the gall to dismiss this as 'the heat of the moment'. What had you forgotten?

I actually thought for one moment that (as others had claimed on the SU site) BNP supporters could have been using your online name to spread divisive lies - to try and keep 'the left' you love so dearly isolated from those striking workers. That would have made a point in and of itself and I would have been the first to back off if you had said 'that not me'. But the truth was worse - you really did come out with that idiotic arguement and still defend most of it.

'heat of the fucking moment' - you were posting on fucking bulletin board Jim. Firstly, can't you tell the difference between REAL life and ONLINE boards?? Secondly, is expelling the shop stewards after calling them 'racists' your solution cutting across backward attitudes among those strikers??? If it is - you have completely lost the plot.

You have the gall to claim my posts are incoherent - Lets make this very clear to an idiot who 'stands by' his demand for the strikers leaders to be expelled from the union' and stands by all of the lies he has repeated on behalf of the bosses and their kept media.

Post after post after post from me on this thread - and plenty of other folk - have explained the simple point that this strike was not a racist strike - that the core issues behind the strike were about working people being cut out of jobs and trade union conditions and rates of pay being undercut by multinationals using cheap outside labour. The underlying EU bosses laws have been clearly explained and pointed out again and again.

You simply ignore all of those simple factual points and, instead, repeat boss and media lies. In doing this you have proven yourself to be a gutless, spineless idiot led by the nose. Now you claim your opponents are incoherent - that 'defense' after your recent outbursts, Jim is utterly pathetic.

You are utterly exposed Jim - your politics are bankrupt - your desperate attempts to pull a couple of irrelevant and pathetic 'left' grouplets behind you to prove some fantasy 'level of support' exposes you further. It shows your contempt for working class people.

And that, Jim, is why I have nothing but contempt for you.

Happy Valentines day, fella


----------



## Nigel (Feb 14, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Public meeting on lessons of the Lindsey oil refinery strike
> 
> 7pm Friday 13 February, Small Hall, Friends Meeting House, 173 Euston Road, NW1, opposite Euston station.
> 
> ...



Went to this.
Quite interesting.
Opposition seemed to be WP & SWP.
Looks like some elements of the left are maturing beyond petty squabbling.

SWP speaker, who was RMT rep accused SP of tampering with some part of a statement, based on some semantics around the using of the phrase workers. Seems to be based upon bitterness; being outflanked by the SP.

Wrack  spoke well, as did Taaffe floor.

Lets hope this is the beginning of good things to come.

Out of interest in left sectariana, who are THE COMMUNE selling papers outside?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 14, 2009)

The Commune appear to be people who left the AWL (i.e dave broder) , like many leninists they discovered some solidarity pamphlets and now claim to be libertarian communists, without undertaking a proper critique of their old ideas (as fas as i can see anyway)- i.e they still have the usual crude anti-imperialist left position and their position on vanguards is leftist fudge - if anything they remind me of the orthodox trotskyism of mandel when he went on about self-management - the 4th international mixed with a partial appropriation of the worst elements of councilism (i.e the Institute for workers control type rather than the pannekoek type) I'm sure they'd disagree. They've put on some really interesting looking events in london.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> The Commune appear to be people who left the AWL (i.e dave broder) , like many leninists they discovered some solidarity pamphlets and now claim to be libertarian communists, without undertaking a proper critique of their old ideas (as fas as i can see anyway)- i.e they still have the usual crude anti-imperialist left position and their position on vanguards is leftist fudge - if anything they remind me of the orthodox trotskyism of mandel when he went on about self-management - the 4th international mixed with a partial appropriation of the worst elements of councilism (i.e the Institute for workers control type rather than the pannekoek type) I'm sure they'd disagree. They've put on some really interesting looking events in london.



I think that two people left the AWL and they may have picked up a couple of other people since then. There's certainly less than five of them.

Their current political position won't last. As you note, the pieces don't really fit together. Their current trajectory suggests that they will end up speaking more fluent anarchoid/councillist, but they might pull back from that. If they've any sense they'll pull back from it anyway.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2009)

articul8 said:


> LOL maybe I did get far too generous
> 
> Combined will be more than 200 though (only 20-30 from WP granted, but AWL are doing particular shit at recruiting from No Sweat and other fronts if they can't muster 300-400)



The AWL have 90 to 100 members at this stage, which is the smallest they've been in a very, very long time. Workers Power are at 30-40.

If we really _have_ to look at what the left thinks about the strikes:

*Broadly Pro:*
Socialist Party
Respect
CPB
PR
WRP
The Commune
CPGB
AWL (by the end)
SSP
Solidarity
Socialist Appeal
LRC

*Broadly Anti:*
WP
AWL (early on)
SEP

*Oooh, er, I dunno mate:*
SWP

Not that any of this makes the slightest bit of difference, as none of these groups, apart from the Socialist Party, was actually involved in the ground.


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 14, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Not that any of this makes the slightest bit of difference, as none of these groups, apart from the Socialist Party, was actually involved in the ground.



A few SSP members went to Grangemouth with the SP leaflet and SSP support.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> A few SSP members went to Grangemouth with the SP leaflet and SSP support.



Good to hear.

I note that Workers Power, deep in their pro-scabbing mentalism, have an overjoyed report up of an SWP public meeting on the issue. Now Workers Power aren't to be trusted but they are presenting the meeting as one primarily concerned with attacking the strikes. Has anyone got a more reliable report?

Or has anyone got anything to add to Nigel's report of the Socialist Party / Respect meeting in London?


----------



## Nigel (Feb 14, 2009)

The SWP are the worse of the lot of them.
They must be purged from all working class politics, both physically and ideologically.


----------



## Spion (Feb 14, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I note that Workers Power, deep in their pro-scabbing mentalism


Wp weren't for crossing picket lines, but for taking on the argument on the picket lines


----------



## Spion (Feb 14, 2009)

Nigel said:


> They must be purged from all working class politics, both *physically *and ideologically.


Now that's just fascism


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2009)

Spion said:


> Wp weren't for crossing picket lines, but for taking on the argument on the picket lines



Strange then that they didn't do so.


----------



## Spion (Feb 14, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Strange then that they didn't do so.


How do you know what they've done or not done exactly?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 14, 2009)

Spion said:


> How do you know what they've done or not done exactly?



They did not go to the picket lines at Lyndsey. Ask them if you don't believe me.


----------



## Spion (Feb 14, 2009)

How do you know that if you're in Ireland?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 15, 2009)

Spion said:


> Now that's just fascism



thats just Nigel and he comes out with daft things


----------



## Nigel (Feb 15, 2009)

It was just meant as a joke!
On a strategic point though, being the opportunistic organisation that they are, I can understand why they sat on the fence in this dispute. 

Without intervention from Trade Unionists and Political Activists, this could possibly have been very different situation.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892656.stm



> The oil firm Total did not break the law in employing Italian workers at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, a report into the controversy has ruled.



Oh, what a surprise.


----------



## ymu (Feb 16, 2009)

What a ridiculous article - the whole point is that the law is a wrong 'un. At least they included the following:


> Trade Union Councils (TUC) general secretary Brendan Barber said: "It is hardly surprising that the Acas enquiry has found that no laws have been broken, as the major union complaint is that the law does not properly protect UK-based workers - wherever they were born.
> 
> "The EU's Posted Workers Directive has been implemented in the UK in a way that fails to guarantee UK agreements, and recent EU court judgements have raised even more worries that the law favours employers that try to undermine existing standards."


----------



## tangentlama (Feb 17, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892656.stm
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a surprise.



Just check out the training courses that ACAS offers to firms on employing migrant workers and you'll see that ACAS aren't exactly an impartial body when it comes to fighting the undercutting of local rates of pay. In fact, it looks as though ACAS play a very active part in educating employers on how to employ migrant workers at cheaper-rates.

If this continues, workers would be better off if they stopped paying their union dues and hired a team of specialist employment lawyers to fight various the rash of agency-worker redundancies that we've been seeing over the last few months, only to see those agencies rehire at lower-rates of pay from outside UK. I'm told that this is happening to other Euro-state workers so again, Europe-wide communication with workers-on-the-ground is important (and I guess we need unions for that...)


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 19, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> A copy of a resolution going to my union branch AGM next week.
> 
> And yes, before Spion comes in and calls us various names from Horst Wessel to David McCalden  , the mover will also be critical of the original slogan of BJFBW.
> 
> ...




Passed overwhelmingly today at my PCS branch AGM.


----------



## Fire (Feb 19, 2009)

tangentlama said:


> Just check out the training courses that ACAS offers to firms on employing migrant workers and you'll see that ACAS aren't exactly an impartial body when it comes to fighting the undercutting of local rates of pay. In fact, it looks as though ACAS play a very active part in educating employers on how to employ migrant workers at cheaper-rates.
> 
> If this continues, workers would be better off if they stopped paying their union dues and hired a team of specialist employment lawyers to fight various the rash of agency-worker redundancies that we've been seeing over the last few months, only to see those agencies rehire at lower-rates of pay from outside UK. I'm told that this is happening to other Euro-state workers so again, Europe-wide communication with workers-on-the-ground is important (and I guess we need unions for that...)




Jees you guys make me laugh, just keep blaming everyone BUT YOURSELVES!!!!!


----------



## nightbreed (Feb 20, 2009)

*SP/Respect public meeting reports*

Saw the report from the Commune blog. Good report of the Lindsey dispute meeting. 60 attended.

Saw the report today in the Socialist that says the meeting had 200 attendees!! 

Who is right or were there two meetings?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Who is right or were there two meetings?



Permanent Revolution report says 160 IIRC.


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Saw the report from the Commune blog. Good report of the Lindsey dispute meeting. 60 attended.
> 
> Saw the report today in the Socialist that says the meeting had 200 attendees!!
> 
> Who is right or were there two meetings?



the pics in those two links are handily taken from opposite sides of the room, so you can kinda piece them together (the john pearson lookalike in  the foreground on the commune pic is handy for seeing where the join should be made - probably the only time JP will be central to anything....). It looks like 90-100 to me


----------



## audiotech (Feb 20, 2009)

Videos.

Keith Gibson, particularly in part two of the vid, makes for good listening.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 20, 2009)

MC5 said:


> Videos.
> 
> Keith Gibson, particularly in part two of the vid, makes for good listening.



Yep - as the fella says - It wasn't even the strike committee that 'asked' the BNP to leave - it was ordinary members on the picket. The limited origin and rapid overturning of the BJ4BW slogan is clearly explained along with the role of the press. The strikers should demand an apology from the so-called 'left' groups who condemned those on the picket line - if they could be bothered to take the idiots seriously.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 20, 2009)

this weeks SW

much better article .. lol 

"Controversy over construction walkouts
by Mike Barton and Simon Basketter

Building workers at two sites went on unofficial strike on Wednesday of last week as part of the battle over jobs in the construction industry.They walked out at the Staythorpe construction site near Newark in Nottinghamshire and the Isle of Grain site in Kent.At Staythorpe around 400 people waving flags – Unite union banners and Union Jacks – blocked the main gate before dawn despite a heavy police presence.

The protest targeted Spanish subcontractors of Alstom, the site’s main building firm. Unions are demanding that British workers get a share of 850 skilled jobs at the site, most of which are currently held by Spanish and Polish workers.
The Spanish and Polish workers are on the same hourly rate no matter how long they work – an arrangement that undercuts the “blue book” national agreement.

Protesters shouted “fair share” and held banners quoting Gordon Brown’s poisonous “British jobs for British workers” slogan. A smaller protest, involving around 100 workers, took place at the Isle of Grain.

The Daily Star newspaper turned up at the picket line and distributed placards emblazoned with Union Jacks and the “British jobs for British workers” slogan. They told pickets to line up for a photo with two models carrying the placards. Some pickets refused to do this and argued with others not to.

The protest’s official banners read “Stop excluding British workers” and “Fairness for British workers”.

A number of the protesters are concerned that the fight for the national agreement and against subcontractors undercutting wages is getting lost in the arguments over foreign labour. The answer is not to argue for hiring a quota of British workers, as the unions did at the Lindsey oil refinery. And it certainly isn’t to cuddle up to the Daily Star like Unite general secretary Derek Simpson did (see picture page 2).

Unions need to refocus the fight by attacking the subcontracting system and demanding full implementation of the blue book for all workers, wherever they are from.

Staythorpe strikers produced leaflets in Spanish and Polish informing foreign workers of their blue book rights. Another protest at the site is set for this Wednesday. At Staythorpe workers are also organising a construction workers’ contingent on next month’s TUC-backed Put People First march against the G20 summit."

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17165

and good letter 

"Too negative on strikes

Your reports of the “British jobs for British workers” strike has been far too negative. Although couched in nationalistic terms, this dispute was about attempts to drive down the going rate for a job. Workers celebrated the action because they put unofficial strikes and solidarity back on the agenda. You were right to criticise the strikers for repeating the crass language used by Gordon Brown, but your arguments would have been much more persuasive if you had stood shoulder to shoulder with the strikers.

David Waller, West London" http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17126

and a fair enough slag off of Derek Simpson http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=17182

methinks SWP rightly got such a kicking over this they have had a little rethink .. lets see


----------



## dennisr (Feb 24, 2009)

I believe it was Spion who asked for further analysis from the SP.

The link below - called "How to fight the economic crisis - Capitalist crisis, mass consciousness and a socialist programme" - provides a fuller outline, including more detail as to how events played out in the British oil refinery strikes (subheaded: confusion and clarity)

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2009/02/2302.html

a snip:

_"Without leadership and organisation when the capitalists have used the cover of the crisis to put the boot in, mass anger has poured out spontaneously both in the factories and onto the streets. This happened in Ireland as the government sought to eliminate health benefits for the elderly. It was followed by angry protests including occupations or threats to do so at Waterford Crystal and Dell, as brutal capital shut down whole factories with as little difficulty as shutting a matchbox. The same outrageous scenes were seen in the ending of the weekend shift at BMW’s Mini plant in Cowley, Oxford, which provoked unprecedented protests including fist fights between workers and supervisors. However, for this elemental revolt of the working class to lead to a sustained movement, what is required is a clear programme, including fighting slogans, and organisation."_

and a wee snipe at those who condemned from the sidelines:
_"How would they have reacted to James Larkin organising mass demonstrations of Catholic and Protestant workers in 1907 with Orange and Green bands in the common struggle against the bosses?"_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2009)

...and we're off again


----------



## treelover (Feb 24, 2009)

> Derek Simpson to Lead March for Fair Access to Jobs at Staythorpe
> 
> LONDON, February 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Unite's joint general secretary, Derek Simpson, will lead a march (see notes) of hundreds of unemployed construction workers tomorrow (Tuesday, 24th) calling for fair access to jobs for unemployed construction workers being refused work at Staythorpe power station.
> 
> ...



http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=249905


March today


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 24, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> ...and we're off again



"Around 80 protesters gathered at Grain Power Station in Kent, waving placards and banners stating "Alstom stop excluding British workers", "Fairness for British workers" and "Fight for jobs at Grain"."

is this the thing the BNP were boosting?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2009)

They were half heartldy trying to jump on it  yes. I'm trying to see who was actually on the ground today.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 27, 2009)

> I told the people of this country British workers have a right to work in Britain. Are you agreeing with me? Well, well let’s get the hecklers shut up, the rest of yer, the decent workers, the ones that aren’t on about foreign workers but are on about British workers for British jobs, shut the hecklers up, let’s get the fight.
> This is a bitter fight, a fight to destroy wages and conditions and their using foreign workers to do it and we need to stop em. All of us need to stop em. Not standing here gobbing at me because your in an election or because your from the BNP or just cos your a tosser whose had too many pints.


----------



## durruti02 (Feb 28, 2009)

^^^ oh FFS how to alienate your members 

ffs he said basically the right stuff ( that the dispute is not against foreign workers .. that it is about the attack on TsNCs etc )  but in way most people would think was out of order  .. and tbh it was HE that sounded drunk )

and was that jerry hicks he was having a go at?


----------



## where to (Feb 28, 2009)

"young Jerry", yup.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2009)

Strike warning over cut-price foreign worker pay



> Unions accuse subcontractors of 'lying' as Alstom site document shows nationally agreed wages undercut by £4 per hour
> 
> Official strike action has been threatened following claims by trade unions that Polish workers are being paid £4 an hour less than the UK nationally agreed rate of pay.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Mar 13, 2009)

I would think The Olympic site is the next flashpoint, locals are spitting blood that they have not been offered the jobs they were promised by the ODA and that contractors are flying in groups of workers from across the world at minimum wage rates.

will find the link later


----------



## durruti02 (Mar 21, 2009)

not sure if anyone had linked to this yet .. here is even Nick Lowles, from Searchlight/HnH saying the dispute was not racist etc "These are difficult issues and often there is no simple solution, but we ignore the anger and fear of these workers at our peril. These are real people struggling with the downturn in a global economy and if we don’t address their concerns then we’ll face the backlash. There is a growing tendency in some quarters to dismiss the protesters as bigoted xenophobes but that certainly wasn’t the impression we encountered today. To dismiss them as such and not answer their concerns would surely lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy."

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article:280-


----------



## purplex (Mar 22, 2009)

treelover said:


> I would think The Olympic site is the next flashpoint, locals are spitting blood that they have not been offered the jobs they were promised by the ODA and that contractors are flying in groups of workers from across the world at minimum wage rates.
> 
> will find the link later



What about "No Borders" though.


----------



## treelover (Mar 22, 2009)

eh, i am not a supporter of 'No Borders' even if naive things like you are...


----------



## durruti02 (Mar 30, 2009)

Plaid MEP Jill Evans has attacked the Conservatives for letting down Welsh workers once again by voting against a law to control subcontractors who exploit workers.

She was speaking in Strasbourg after an important vote in the European Parliament on subcontractor liability, which was adopted with 321 votes to 235, meaning that the Conservatives and their allies lost the vote.

Jill Evans, who represents the whole of Wales in the European Parliament, said:

“As we have seen from recent disputes, the practice of subcontracting across Europe has resulted in undercutting wages and working conditions. Subcontracting is used by some, especially in the construction industry, as a means of exploiting workers and getting away with it. If often leads to a race to the bottom in terms of rights and conditions as employers compete with each other for lower labour costs.

"Eight EU member countries have brought in their own liability schemes. These have worked well and in Germany it led to posted workers getting back payments worth thousands of pounds.

"But a European law is needed for when subcontracting takes place across borders. Companies have to be responsible for the conditions of workers employed by people they subcontract work to. We are calling for "joint and several liability" which would ensure this. We also want to see campaigns to inform workers about their rights.

“Plaid Cymru is on the side of Welsh workers. By opposing a new law, the Tories have shown once again that they put profit before people.”
 lewis lewis posted this on another thread


----------



## dennisr (Apr 16, 2009)

*Deceptive denigration of Lindsey strike*

One of those who turned this strike around speaks about the continuing distortions of some on the left - in particular the SWPs recent article in Socialist Review. I'm putting the link up because a number of 'critics' on this thread did keep questioning the SPs 'understanding' of the mood and wanted clarification.

Some short extracts:

_"Under the leadership of the strike committee, this was not a strike against the employment of foreign labour, but was against the use of the capitalist EU laws which allow workers to be brought in from abroad without being part of the national 'blue book' site agreements. The workers knew that this was the real issue and not the use of foreign labour per se.

But it seems that, since the strike, the SWP and some other groups on the left are doing their level best to undermine its achievements by focussing on the issue of 'British jobs for British workers' (BJ4BW).  "_

...

_"The SWP leaflet given out on the Lindsey picket line said: 'Those who support this strike are playing with fire'. What could this mean, except 'don't support the strike'? Yes, unfortunately they got it wrong, and all that they say now is a result of their wrong position from the beginning."_

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7160


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 16, 2009)

dennisr said:


> "The SWP leaflet given out on the Lindsey picket line said: 'Those who support this strike are playing with fire'. What could this mean, except 'don't support the strike'?


Shame on them.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 16, 2009)

this is the bit about the SWPs refusal to face facts once they become clear:

_"The concerted attempt by the SWP to muddy the waters seeks to feed on the very real fears of migrant workers and others when they see the media's promotion of the slogan 'British jobs for British workers'. Migrant workers and others justifiably fear that such a stance, if it was in reality adopted, would be at their expense.

The Socialist Party has consistently opposed the BJ4BW slogan and has never closed its eyes to the dangers that exist if slogans of this nature become predominant.

But after decades of neo-liberalism and attacks on trade union organisation, is it any wonder that there is confusion in the minds of many workers as they see the looming threat of mass unemployment? As a result, some, especially when they don't see a progressive alternative, seek to blame immigrant workers.

It is the responsibility of socialists in these circumstances to put forward demands that clearly identify the real enemy, the bosses of the major construction companies, to cut across any turn to racism and nationalism and not allow workers to be divided. This was the role played by the Socialist Party alongside others.

Every struggle, after the period workers have been through, will contain elements of confusion, including wrong demands. But the job of socialists is to see what is primary and what is secondary. The SWP rightly gives full support to the struggle of the sacked Visteon workers despite the flying of nationalist flags by some of those workers, but draws a contrived line of division between the Visteon workers and the Lindsey workers.

The SWP has chosen to 'big up' the BJ4BW slogan as the main feature of the Lindsey strike, seemingly for sectarian reasons because of the central role of the Socialist Party in that strike."

The racist BNP did attempt to intervene in the construction strikes but they were ignored or chased off the picket lines. If it had been left up to Martin Smith and his party then indeed the BNP might have been able to make some headway, but the conscious intervention of the Socialist Party and other left trade unionists elevated the need for workers' solidarity in struggle, and that is what came to the fore."_


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 16, 2009)

cheers dennis .. yes was simply terrible politics from the SWP .. i wonder how many of them realise how important is was to have a w/c socialist involved with this dispute and how and why that socialist was from the SP not their org?

btw the BNP have not touched the Visteon dispute at all .. even at Basildon .. at Enfield the workforce is pretty mixed though predominantly old school TU middle aged white .. wonder if they got burnt at the construction dispute? they would have got murdered i think at Enfield


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2009)

Will read this later - hopefully some crucial lesson there in how to relate to the important struggles we've got coming over the next few years. I still hear people who took a totally counter-productive postion (including those old enough and experienced enough to know better) talking as if they managed to avert a nationawide series of murderous pogroms, rather than demionstrated the gulf seperating their membership from the w/c.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 16, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> they would have got murdered i think at Enfield



even less chance in Belfast... 

i think the BNP only appeared because of the initial mistaken slogans and the media coverage - it wasn't an nazi SA 'left face' moment on their part. The remain a solidly anti-worker party


----------



## dennisr (Apr 16, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Will read this later - hopefully some crucial lesson there in how to relate to the important struggles we've got coming over the next few years.



Its just a short piece from the SP paper BA - not an in depth analysis, just a one pager


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 16, 2009)

Yeahm just read it with my cuppa, don't know why, but i thought it was a pamphlet.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 16, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Yeahm just read it with my cuppa, don't know why, but i thought it was a pamphlet.



I'm guessing that this is a short reply, largely to the Swappies pamphlet "Why BJ4BW Won't Solve the Crisis"

I don't reckon we would go that far at this stage (ie producing an entire  pamphlet over the single issue) stuff is in the pipeline re the general mood that this strike wave reflect though (which will cover the slogan and mistakes of the left)


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 19, 2009)

i've had someone on facebook recently alleging that SP were cheerleading a 'nationalist strike' and that i should read Workers Power to learn the truth of this! .. i listenned to and read enough qoutes fronm the workers themselves to know what went on ..


----------



## Udo Erasmus (Apr 19, 2009)

Well, let me tell you in West Wales, the deputy leader of the BNP was invited and did address a picket line during the Lindsey dispute. 

At Straythorpe, there is video footage of the march being led by people with Unite banners chanting - 'What do we want? Foreigners OUT! When do we want it? NOW'

The SP continually gloss over this, saying that this was a small minority, but the fact that they could get away with leading the march chanting those kind of slogans (not generally found on a trade union demo) shows that there were serious problems. I've never been on any trade union march where racist slogans have been chanted by those fronting it up.The SP also seem to think that just because the strike committee at the top voted for a reasonable set of demands that this somehow wins the battle of ideas at the rank and file level.

We also see Derek Simpson, leader of UNITE having snaps taken for the Daily Star of him with 2 Star models wearing tight t-shirts with the slogan - 'British Jobs for British Workers'

I'm not a member of the SWP, but a number of myths seem to be being spread about their intervention. In South Wales where I lived, SWP members visited picket lines and showed solidarity, they told me that it wasn't a racist strike, the union full-timers were quite concerned to say that they had no problems with foreign workers, but there was a dangerous dose of nationalism, most of the placards contained the slogans 'Put British Workers First' and 'British Jobs for British Workers' and who was being targetted was ambiguous - that's precisely why the union bureacrats have been much more favourable to the Lindsey dispute than Visteon. 

In Merthyr, where the main employer in the town - Hoover - recently closed down, the union focused mainly on the issue of a foreign company, that immediately channels anger along nationalistic rather than class lines, and cuts off people from uniting with other workers.

Of course, any group of workers taking militant action should be supported & if there is nationalism or racism present then the job of socialists is not to duck the arguments and jeer from the sidelines, but win people's respect so you can give the counter-arguments.

As the late Tony Cliff put it, you are on a picket line and somebody makes a racist remark, you have 3 options:

1. You can storm off because you won't unite with racists. This is ultra-left sectarianism, beacuse if the emancipation of the workers is the act of the workers, you have to unite with them.
2. You can pretend you didn't hear and gloss over it and stay where you are (this seems to be the SP/CPB line)
3. You can link arms with fellow workers to defend the picket line against the bosses and police, but at the same time argue tooth-and-nail against racism and explain why this weakens the working class - this is the socialist approach.


----------



## treelover (Apr 19, 2009)

> Of course, any group of workers taking militant action should be supported & if there is nationalism or racism present then the job of socialists is not to duck the arguments and jeer from the sidelines, but win people's respect so you can give the counter-arguments.




Well, the SWP will be along time waiting, another question why do tiny sects think that workers have any thing to learn from them, i accept that the SP manouvered quite well in the Lynsey dispute, but who are the far left to lecture people on picket lines, etc.


----------



## dennisr (Apr 19, 2009)

Its a shame only an ex-member of the SWP chooses to defend their position

Unfortunatly you do that by simply repeating two lies that have already ben repeated enough times

Number1:



Udo Erasmus said:


> The SP continually gloss over this, saying that this was a small minority .. The SP also seem to think that just because the strike committee at the top voted for a reasonable set of demands that this somehow wins the battle of ideas at the rank and file level.



Far from 'glossing' over SP members played a key role in turning that movement around. Show evidence that anything was 'glossed over' by the SP - where the SP has not bought out both the fact such attitudes exist or why they exist. Show me where they say that 'voting at the top' 'wins the battle of ideas'. It was won on the ground. They 'won respect' rather than quoted a line from Cliff - by raising the correct slogans they certainly did not 'stand in line silently' as you poisonously claim.

Number 2:



Udo Erasmus said:


> I'm not a member of the SWP, but a number of myths seem to be being spread about their intervention. In South Wales where I lived, SWP members visited picket lines and showed solidarity, they told me that it wasn't a racist strike, the union full-timers were quite concerned to say that they had no problems with foreign workers, but there was a dangerous dose of nationalism, most of the placards contained the slogans 'Put British Workers First' and 'British Jobs for British Workers' and who was being targetted was ambiguous - that's precisely why the union bureacrats have been much more favourable to the Lindsey dispute than Visteon.



This entirely contradicts what you are trying to say at the beginning (that racism was central to the dispute). It entirely vindicates the SPs point of view - no 'glossing' there.

Anyway, to number 2: For all of you 'militant' qouting of Cliff - what role did the SWP play ACTUALLY were it counted? Look above for the report direct from the stewards and `Lindsey about what they said in thier material - was the same material handed out were you speak? Did they flog a couple of papers? Why do they continue to plug the 'racist' line given the comments of your ex-comrades above? 

Either your ex-comrades are out of sync with the organisation or they are turning another face to you.


----------



## durruti02 (Apr 19, 2009)

Udo Erasmus said:


> 1) Well, let me tell you in West Wales, the deputy leader of the BNP was invited and did address a picket line during the Lindsey dispute.
> 
> 2)At Straythorpe, there is video footage of the march being led by people with Unite banners chanting - 'What do we want? Foreigners OUT! When do we want it? NOW'
> 
> ...



1) evidence please 

2) ditto 

3) well first i am not sure i believe but lets say it is true .. there was hours of other video where workers stated over and over that they had no beef with foreigners / people travelling to work ( after all they probably all have done so ) but they were really really pissed off with being cut out by the sub sub sub contracting .. tbh i think this is as much a language thing .. a lot of people i know will say 'birds' or 'pakishop' who are NOT misogynist or anti pakistani but that is simply the language they and the people around them use .. but i'll wait for the video 

4) not relevent to the origins or fundamentals of the strike nor the SPs involvement 

5) so they were disagreeing with the line afaics?

6) it is language .. socialists need to understand that people cover themselves with flags of their birth country and that does NOT mean they are ideologically committed to them .. some may be but to say British Jobs does NOT mean they same ot them as it does to you 

7) not true .. the lindsay dispute featured 1000s walking out with no union call, and was clearly winnable in that there is tons of money still flowing in these work area and in which delays hurt profits more than workers .. Visteon is a company that is shut .. there is no actual industrial dispute but a protest .. for them to win industrially Unite need to call out Fords .. they are scared to do so as that could mean people lose their jobs .. yes Unite have given NO support at all but that is a very differrent situation

they Cliff qoute is fine .. but SP were 3) not 2) .. and it was the SWP who were clearly 1)


----------



## durruti02 (May 19, 2009)

new outbreak of walkouts 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8057286.stm


----------



## TAE (May 19, 2009)




----------



## treelover (May 19, 2009)

Is that all, TAE, workers in wildcat struggles not enough for you?


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2009)

'More than two thousand workers at the ConocoPhillips and Lindsey oil refineries in North Lincolnshire have walked out after similar action on Tuesday.'




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8058990.stm


walkouts spreading


----------



## Nigel (May 20, 2009)

Udo Erasmus said:


> Well, let me tell you in West Wales, the deputy leader of the BNP was invited and did address a picket line during the Lindsey dispute.
> 
> At Straythorpe, there is video footage of the march being led by people with Unite banners chanting - 'What do we want? Foreigners OUT! When do we want it? NOW'
> 
> ...


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2009)

It is widely known and accepted that there were just such chants as Udo states on the Staythorpe demo - see the comments at http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3661 for links to video's.

How widely the chant was taken up is somewhat less clear, it undoubtedly was by a few people, but not, seemingly from the vid, the large majority. It would be _incredibly_ stupid to do what some appear to want to do here, and to bury your head in the sand and pretend there was _no_ racism or bigotry on display.  But the important thing for socialists is, surely, not to simply stand on the side and go 'woo hoo wonderful workers' nor 'boo his, racist bastards' but to intervene in any discussions going on and trying to put forward a positive way forward, as people from the unions did (not Simpson, obviously), for instance distributing leaflets in relevant local languages demanding that everyone is on full and proper blue book rates.


----------



## Nigel (May 20, 2009)

belboid said:


> It is widely known and accepted that there were jsut such chants as Udo states on the Staythorpe demo - see the comments at http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3661 for links to video's.
> 
> How widely the chant was taken up is somewhat less clear, it undoubtedly was by a few people, but not, semmingly from the vid, the large majority. It would be _incredibly_ stupid to do what some apepar to want to do here, and to bury your head in the sand and pretend there was _no_ racism or bigotry on display.  But the important thing for socialists is, surely, not to simply stand on the side and go 'woo hoo wonderful workers' nor 'boo his, racist bastards' but to intervene in any discussions going on and trying to put forward a positive way forward, as people from the unions did (not Simpson, obviously), for instance distributing leaflets in relevant local languages demanding that everyone is on full and proper blue book rates.



What about deputy leader of BNP asked to speak, surely they would have jumped at opportunity?


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2009)

no idea whatsoever


----------



## Nigel (May 20, 2009)

Cannot find anything on this issue?
Could try ST%rmf r+nt


----------



## belboid (May 20, 2009)

there's nothing on Simon Darby's blog (that I could see), so I suspect that that one's tosh


----------



## Dan U (May 20, 2009)

you'd be gutted wouldn't you

make a nice banner, get your picture taken for a national papers website and DOH!


----------



## dennisr (May 20, 2009)

belboid said:


> But the important thing for socialists is, surely, not to simply stand on the side and go 'woo hoo wonderful workers' nor 'boo his, racist bastards' but to intervene in any discussions going on and trying to put forward a positive way forward, as people from the unions did (not Simpson, obviously), for instance distributing leaflets in relevant local languages demanding that everyone is on full and proper blue book rates.



yep, spot on

it is a very confused movement - demands for everyone being on the books and equal rights are coming out from the very same folk waving the BJ4BW banner. I suppose you coulds argue that BJ4BW means a very different thing to the workers involved than to those looking from the outside.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 20, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I suppose you coulds argue that BJ4BW means a very different thing to the workers involved than to those looking from the outside.


Go on then.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (May 20, 2009)

belboid said:


> there's nothing on Simon Darby's blog (that I could see), so I suspect that that one's tosh



Udo Erasmus talking tosh well I fucking never


----------



## TAE (May 20, 2009)

treelover said:


> Is that all, TAE, workers in wildcat struggles not enough for you?



I was refering to the sign they were holding.


----------



## durruti02 (May 20, 2009)

dennisr said:


> yep, spot on
> 
> it is a very confused movement - demands for everyone being on the books and equal rights are coming out from the very same folk waving the BJ4BW banner. I suppose you coulds argue that BJ4BW means a very different thing to the workers involved than to those looking from the outside.



agree with that last bit .. most people do not get their knickers in a twist about people calling themselves english or british 

.. at enfield in the visteon dispute black and asians were happy to call themselves british and saw the idea of BJFBW as just simply calling for jobs for local people with no racial or xenophobic conatations .. i still don't  like the term though


----------



## treelover (May 20, 2009)

Have to say there were some dodgy banners on display today, 'We love Tubes, not Poles' 

still don't know what patronising far left trots can do though to intervene even given the SP's good work at Lynsey, this is getting much bigger now.


----------



## liampreston (May 20, 2009)

Economy going the shape of the pair, politics  is turning into a farce of its own design, unemployment rising, deflation continuing, and now sporadic strikes by workers angry at/fearful of foreign workers.

History does like these echoes through the years...

Times they are troubling as well as changing...


----------



## dennisr (May 20, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> Go on then.



I wouldn't give you the pleasure.

You are based in New York arn't you?

There's a film called 'The Killing Floor' (I think_ - all about the unionisation of the stock yards in Chicargo - leading up to the race riots in that city post world war. You should hunt this one out and watch it - not just for the fine blues soundtrack.


----------



## dennisr (May 20, 2009)

Latest:
Workers strike at South Hook construction site in Wales
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7300

Construction strikes spread
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7299


----------



## tbaldwin (May 20, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> agree with that last bit .. most people do not get their knickers in a twist about people calling themselves english or british
> 
> .. at enfield in the visteon dispute black and asians were happy to call themselves british and saw the idea of BJFBW as just simply calling for jobs for local people with no racial or xenophobic conatations .. i still don't  like the term though



I think the reason you dont like the term is that you associate it with NF and BNP.....But the thing to remember is that they never meant it.. British people for at least the 90 years have been Black,White and Asian....
There is nothing wrong with the slogan just the way some cretins have used it.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 20, 2009)

dennisr said:


> I wouldn't give you the pleasure.
> 
> You are based in New York arn't you?
> 
> There's a film called 'The Killing Floor' (I think_ - all about the unionisation of the stock yards in Chicargo - leading up to the race riots in that city post world war. You should hunt this one out and watch it - not just for the fine blues soundtrack.


New York? Never beamed down there. But if you won't try to apply Hegelian dialectics to prove that BJ4BWs = Workers of All Lands Unite, try it with this one: Welsh Jobs 4 Welsh Workers. To tell the truth, I'm genuinely surprised with the extent that SPEW (good name in the circumstances) has taken this anti-foreigner line.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 20, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> I think the reason you dont like the term is that you associate it with NF and BNP.....But the thing to remember is that they never meant it.. British people for at least the 90 years have been Black,White and Asian....
> There is nothing wrong with the slogan just the way some cretins have used it.


In other words, British Jobs for British Workers (Black, White and Asian) but not for Polish workers? Not quite as bad I suppose as British Jobs for British Workers (White) but not for Black, Asian or Polish Workers. Or is it?


----------



## dennisr (May 20, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> BJ4BWs = Workers of All Lands Unite



That's right, that's exactly what I said 

Stick to space ships you ejet


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 20, 2009)

dennisr said:


> BJ4BWs = Workers of All Lands Unite. That's right, that's exactly what I said


Is that Marx turning in his grave?


----------



## lewislewis (May 20, 2009)

BBC News Wales section is horribly leading with a UKIP comment on the walkouts, with the other parties quoted afterwards:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8059162.stm


----------



## tbaldwin (May 20, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> In other words, British Jobs for British Workers (Black, White and Asian) but not for Polish workers? Not quite as bad I suppose as British Jobs for British Workers (White) but not for Black, Asian or Polish Workers. Or is it?



Poles have been in the UK for at least 60 years. The ones who are settled here consider themselves British....You still seem to want to think its xenophobic to argue for British jobs for British workers but it isnt. Its arguing that people should have the right to jobs in the places they have settled and not have to migrate for work...


----------



## liampreston (May 20, 2009)

lewislewis said:


> BBC News Wales section is horribly leading with a UKIP comment on the walkouts, with the other parties quoted afterwards:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/8059162.stm



Be more worried when the BNP lead the news stories on this.


----------



## durruti02 (May 21, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> Is that Marx turning in his grave?


lol did you READ Marx on the Irish coming to England and the Chinese coming to America?? he was very aware of how migration and imported workers are used to undercut wages and workers power

though btw the SP (and me) oppose the slogan BJFBW so where you get the idea dr supports it god knows


----------



## durruti02 (May 21, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> I think the reason you dont like the term is that you associate it with NF and BNP.....But the thing to remember is that they never meant it.. British people for at least the 90 years have been Black,White and Asian....
> There is nothing wrong with the slogan just the way some cretins have used it.



yes i agree the NF and BNP lie when they say BJFBW ... i accept there is a strong argument from the Billy Bragg corner for a progressive British, but imho it is too dangerous to use words like this .. nations are false concepts .. and it just confuses things .. hence to lewislewis confusion, as i seem to know more about it than him with his Plaid card,  i oppose welsh nationalism too whch many people see as a 'progressive nationalism'


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 21, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> lol did you READ Marx on the Irish coming to England and the Chinese coming to America?? he was very aware of how migration and imported workers are used to undercut wages and workers power


Yes, I do remember reading something in Marx (and Engels) about the downward effect of Irish immigration on wages in England. I take your word for it that he said the same thing about Chinese immigration into America. But I took that to be a mere factual description (which equally applies to the recent influx of Polish workers into the building trade and construction industry), not what do about it. I don't recall Marx saying that the answer was to keep workers from Ireland or China out. I thought it was more along the lines of Workers of the World Unite to Abolish the Wages System, ie the system under which they were commodities who had to compete against each other to get a job from employers. In the meantime that workers should try to ensure that all workers in a particular trade or on a particular job should be paid the same wherever they might have come from.
I do know that in America some unions, and even some calling themselves Marxist Socialists, went off the rails in calling for a ban on Chinese immigration, just as Bob Crow and his crew are today.



durruti02 said:


> though btw the SP (and me) oppose the slogan BJFBW so where you get the idea dr supports it god knows


I thought Dennis said so himself, but maybe he was being ironic (which is a warning to all to not use irony as some people will take you literally). But I'm not sure about this. When I quoted on a different thread (the one about workers on the Olympic site) this statement from a press release on the NO2EU site and asked him to explain it, he didn't answer:


> “The anger amongst workers over the race to the bottom on jobs, pay and working conditions by companies exploiting the recession and the hiring and firing of overseas workers is now turning into a national fightback. That’s why I will be joining with our colleagues from the construction industry on the gates of the Olympic site in Stratford on Wednesday morning to show full support and solidarity,” Bob Crow said today.


"Full support and solidarity" with "the anger amongst workers over ... the hiring and firing of overseas workers", what do you think it means?

I concede that 
(1) the Crow list is not racist, ie is not saying (as is the BNP) "British jobs for British-born White Workers", but something more like "British jobs for British-born Workers of All Races", and
(2) that there is a trade-union aspect to this that they are trying to put forward, that all workers, wherever they are recruited from, should have same wages and conditions.

But, if the reports are correct, what the strikers have been demanding is that jobs be reserved for "local" ,ie British, workers and not go to "overseas" workers even if they were to be paid the going trade-union rate. If Crow and Dennis support this (as they seem to) then they have crossed the line. In any event, one aspect of their anti-EU campaign is opposition to "the free movement of labour". In other words, that a British government should be free to opt out of this, ie to impose controls on the movement of workers from Europe into Britain. Otherwise why bring the EU into it at all.


----------



## nightbreed (May 21, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> But, if the reports are correct, what the strikers have been demanding is that jobs be reserved for "local" ,ie British, workers and not go to "overseas" workers even if they were to be paid the going trade-union rate. If Crow and Dennis support this (as they seem to) then they have crossed the line. .



Its 'local' as in 'local' workers. Not just British. There could be Poles, Germans Portuguese Carribean Chinese etc workers living locally. That my and I believe Dennisr and Crows view.

Do you agree with the free movement of Labour to ther extent that T's and C's are undercut?

The issue at Lindsey was clearly about defending the Naeci agreement, not BJ4BW(a minority of workers), against the client trying to get a job done cheaply

BTW the excuse at South Hook by employers that they cant find 'local' labour is pathetic and a really stupid excuse.

We saw the same thing down here at Fawley back in 2006


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> Poles have been in the UK for at least 60 years. The ones who are settled here consider themselves British....You still seem to want to think its xenophobic to argue for British jobs for British workers but it isnt. Its arguing that people should have the right to jobs in the places they have settled and not have to migrate for work...



of course it is xenophobic.  It was okay for Poles to come here when you thought there were 'enough' jobs, but not now.  Poles are okay, slovaks aren't?  This is shallow drivel. BJ4BW leaves you flailing around trying to justify it, when it cant be justified, even if the workers with those banners (or many of them at least) don't really mean to exclude eastern europeans or others (altho i know you'd exclude them), they simply want to be able to work close to home, as the vast majority of people do. It is an utterly shite slogan, and while socialists (actual socialists that is, not ones who vote liberal) shouldn't simply say anyone using the slogan is racist, they should niot in any way seek to repeat or support it.

Of course people shouldn't _have to_ migrate for work, but neither should they be banned from so doing, as you wish.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

nightbreed said:


> Do you agree with the free movement of Labour to ther extent that T's and C's are undercut?


it's not really 'free movement of labour' tho is it?  it is tied labour owned and transported by the bosses, not moving because they (the workers) want to. That is NOT free movement


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2009)

A question, can foreign labour ever be 'scabs' or is it that because they are foreign, migrants, 'the wretched of the earth' etc, much of the Left can't conceive of them in those terms?


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

what a fucking stupid question.


----------



## Spion (May 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> A question, can foreign labour ever be 'scabs' or is it that because they are foreign, migrants, 'the wretched of the earth' etc, much of the Left can't conceive of them in those terms?


Of course foreign workers aren't scabs you racist twat


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2009)

This was an abstract question, not about the current events at the sites, so, in no circumstances whatsoever imported labour cannot be scabs, you are a fanatic chum and why the left is failing and flailing.


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

no one has ever said anything like that tho.  you view of 'the left' is entirely fictitious and exists solely in your head


----------



## treelover (May 21, 2009)

> Of course foreign workers aren't scabs you racist twat'





This sounds uniquivocal to me....


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

hearing what you want to hear


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> This sounds uniquivocal to me....



Spion is not 'the left'. Spion is special. Plenty on the left have been arguing with Spion for months - quite sharply, earlier on this thread.

Discussion with Spion is a bit like discussion with you though - 'one' goes through points patiently. They don't answer the points - actually they ignore those points only torepeat the same old formulaic argument that had previously been answered - the one already in their head - a few posts later


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> "Full support and solidarity" with "the anger amongst workers over ... the hiring and firing of overseas workers", what do you think it means?
> 
> I concede that
> (1) the Crow list is not racist, ie is not saying (as is the BNP) "British jobs for British-born White Workers", but something more like "British jobs for British-born Workers of All Races", and
> ...



Do you live in the same vacuam as Spion and Treelover?

The replies that answer the assumptions and distortions you have just repeated for the nth time - have already been gone over and explained again and again this thread.

The fight is for equal opportunity to jobs - to stop the cutting out of local unionised workforces, against the use by multinationals of cheaper 'impoted' labour to break previous agreements and lower the wages and conditions of all workers (added: using EU laws to do so, of course).

Why the fuck you feel I should waste my time answering your purile rhetoric whenever you ask me to jump through your artificial hoops I don't know? Do you consider yourself 'special' too, spacemen?


----------



## Spion (May 21, 2009)

treelover said:


> This was an abstract question, not about the current events at the sites, so, in no circumstances whatsoever imported labour cannot be scabs


I never said anything of the sort. Scabs are scabs and their nationality is irrelevant to whether they are or not

Shame on you, Dennis


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

Spion said:


> Shame on you, Dennis



What again?


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

A repeat for Spion from way back in post 770 (just over 1000 posts ago...) in reply to his/her earlier fantasy moralism:



dennisr said:


> Its called providing a lead rather than abdicating responsibility and leaving those workers open to the hypocritical platitudes of the BNP.
> 
> Spion - why one position for Hamas supporters and another for British workers when those workers arn't already fully fledged 'revolutionaries' you wish them to be?
> 
> This is a key test case in working out where any genuine left alternative in this country really comes from. Those who stand aside should be ashamed


----------



## Spion (May 21, 2009)

Soz pal. I don't have the time or inclination to answer the kind of feeble-minded rubbish I already answered months ago. Find someone else to work your ego on


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

Spion said:


> Soz pal. I don't have the time or inclination to answer the kind of feeble-minded rubbish I already answered months ago. Find someone else to work your ego on



"ego", "feeble minded" - you answered nothing and now you run away.

its ok, Jean-Luc can take over in the tag team of do-nothing idiots.

'pal'


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

*Milford Haven strike win big victory*

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7316

_"Construction workers at the South Hook LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) terminal construction site near Milford Haven in South Wales have won a big victory over employers by taking unofficial action in defiance of anti-union laws.

Solidarity action by construction workers across Wales and England has forced Hertel UK to back down from its attempt to refuse to employ any more unionised UK-based laggers on the site. The plant's contract with Hertel UK is "under review". Clearly the prompt action, illegal under the current ant-union legislation, across the country was hurting Hertel and the industry as a whole. Hertel was forced to make a humiliating climbdown."_

the 'racists'...


----------



## dennisr (May 21, 2009)

_"Journalists from all the main media outlets searched in vain at Milford Haven for the banners demanding 'British jobs for British workers'. This was never action against foreign workers, but to defend jobs and to protect union agreements.

The BBC emphasised that a UKIP candidate was leafleting workers at Aberthaw power station in the Vale of Glamorgan but failed to mention he had been instructed to f*** off from the platform by the union convenor. In contrast there was a warm response to the leaflets for No2EU - Yes to Democracy and workers at both sites queued to take copies of the Socialist Party newsletter from Lindsey."_

I should add - those newsletters take up the dangers of the BJ4BW slogan - the dangers of division and argue for getting *ALL* workers - local and non-local - on the books and unionised.


----------



## tbaldwin (May 21, 2009)

belboid said:


> of course it is xenophobic.  It was okay for Poles to come here when you thought there were 'enough' jobs, but not now.  Poles are okay, slovaks aren't?  This is shallow drivel. BJ4BW leaves you flailing around trying to justify it, when it cant be justified, even if the workers with those banners (or many of them at least) don't really mean to exclude eastern europeans or others (altho i know you'd exclude them), they simply want to be able to work close to home, as the vast majority of people do. It is an utterly shite slogan, and while socialists (actual socialists that is, not ones who vote liberal) shouldn't simply say anyone using the slogan is racist, they should niot in any way seek to repeat or support it.
> 
> Of course people shouldn't _have to_ migrate for work, but neither should they be banned from so doing, as you wish.



You havent given one single reason there why you think the slogan is xenophobic. Just gone off in a prejudiced tangent.....
 There is nothing wrong with British workers having jobs is there belboid?


----------



## belboid (May 21, 2009)

yes of course, i want al lbritish workers to be unemployed 

learn to read, pillock


----------



## durruti02 (May 21, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> 1) Yes, I do remember reading something in Marx (and Engels) about the downward effect of Irish immigration on wages in England. I take your word for it that he said the same thing about Chinese immigration into America. But I took that to be a mere factual description (which equally applies to the recent influx of Polish workers into the building trade and construction industry), not what do about it.
> 
> 2) I don't recall Marx saying that the answer was to keep workers from Ireland or China out.
> 
> ...



1) was a bit of a debate on Marx here before it degenerated  

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=164047

2) no i understood he argued to use trade unions to protect wages and conditions and against the use of migrant labour to attack those 

3) workers unite? well yes but that starts at home first . how can you unite with someone who is prepared to do your job for less? 

4) yes but the differrence is they called for the STATE to ban immigration .. THAT is the key ideological differrence .. 

5) you still have not explained what is wrong with demanding employers employ locally .. ( btw do you have kids? )


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 22, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> 3) workers unite? well yes but that starts at home first . how can you unite with someone who is prepared to do your job for less?
> 
> 4) yes but the differrence is they called for the STATE to ban immigration .. THAT is the key ideological differrence ..
> 
> 5) you still have not explained what is wrong with demanding employers employ locally .. ( btw do you have kids? )



3) What are you saying here? That workers should unite against them? Worker against worker?
4) So direct action to stop immigration is OK, then?
5) What do you mean by "local"? Those living in the same street, same neighbourhood, same town, same county, same country, what? "British Jobs for British Workers" is just a development of "Local Jobs for Local Workers" or perhaps it's the other way round: "Local Jobs for Local Workers" is the politically correct way of saying "British Jobs for British Workers".
What's wrong with it is that it accepts that we are commodities who have to compete against each other for jobs and opts for making the best of it. It's probably inevitable as long as people accept that this is way things have to be. Can't you think outside the box? Why do we need employers to employ us? Discuss.


----------



## tbaldwin (May 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> yes of course, i want al lbritish workers to be unemployed
> 
> learn to read, pillock



Not something i said is it? Just i dont agree with you about your opposition to calling for British jobs for British workers. I think its fine if thats all it means. If it means no jobs for Blacks its not so good is it...But if anyone uses the slogan British jobs for British workers does that suddenly mean everyone who uses it secretly means that? I dont think so.


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2009)

fuck you can be astoundingly thick. And why do you keep going on about colour?  no one else has, its all in your head.

It's a fucking stupid, xenophobic, slogan that will come back and bite those using it on the arse. 

I hope you have fun going around dragging foreigners out of their workplaces tho


----------



## tbaldwin (May 22, 2009)

belboid said:


> I hope you have fun going around dragging foreigners out of their workplaces tho



Children....Today we have a new supply teacher for maths....Mr Belboid......

2 and 2 makes 76....


----------



## belboid (May 22, 2009)

pathetic, even  by your low standards. You dont ever actually think through what you write, do you?  That's why you come out with such shite


----------



## Nigel (May 22, 2009)

Hypothetically,
If all these workers did follow a Chauvanistic Line, and say all joined P+t H@rrigt *ns' S O L I D A R iTY how would we/you deal with it!


----------



## durruti02 (May 22, 2009)

I said Originally Posted by durruti02 View Post
3) workers unite? well yes but that starts at home first . how can you unite with someone who is prepared to do your job for less?

4) yes but the differrence is they called for the STATE to ban immigration .. THAT is the key ideological differrence ..

5) you still have not explained what is wrong with demanding employers employ locally .. ( btw do you have kids? )

YOu said 





Jean-Luc said:


> 3) What are you saying here? That workers should unite against them? Worker against worker?
> 4) So direct action to stop immigration is OK, then?
> 5) What do you mean by "local"? Those living in the same street, same neighbourhood, same town, same county, same country, what? "British Jobs for British Workers" is just a development of "Local Jobs for Local Workers" or perhaps it's the other way round: "Local Jobs for Local Workers" is the politically correct way of saying "British Jobs for British Workers".
> What's wrong with it is that it accepts that we are commodities who have to compete against each other for jobs and opts for making the best of it. It's probably inevitable as long as people accept that this is way things have to be. Can't you think outside the box? Why do we need employers to employ us? Discuss.




3) you are jumping the gun .. workers need to first unite where they work to get some sort of power .. it makes no practical sense to talk of uniting with other workers if first you are not organised .. why should you unite with people who are essentially taking your jobs? yes make the offer but .. so yes the first rule of trade unionism is to create a closed shop/ or level of organisation so as to force the employer to do what you say .. if that means uniting against a set of workers who are prepared to take your jobs then so be it 

4) you entirely miss the ( many actually ) point/s .. immigration is NOT a GOOD thing .. it is a forced economic thing .. workers have lost much of their power .. the bosses are using migration as part of cheap labour and non union work forces etc etc .. 

so NO the issue is NOT about being AGAINST immigration .. it is about how to rebuild workers power where we work and live 

5) local simply means what it says .. if there are unemployed people they should be employed first .. this not only makes sense to people directly but is hwo we will rebuild community and unions 

your last point is interesting and again dramatically misses the point .. sadly we ARE just commodities now .. the issue is how to change that .. we can NOT just wish it away nor, sadly, simply absent ourselves  from capitalism.. a tiny minority can but the vast majority do not


----------



## Nigel (May 22, 2009)

People aren't allowed to move to other countries because of some bizzare mythological concept of localisation.

Do you not think that other cultures and people do not enrich, not only as far as selling their skills and labour but also culturally and intellectually. This should be held back by people who are afraid of change and have romantic and reactionary idealised concept of how things were in the past?


----------



## dennisr (May 23, 2009)

Nigel said:


> Hypothetically,
> If all these workers did follow a Chauvanistic Line, and say all joined P+t H@rrigt *ns' S O L I D A R iTY how would we/you deal with it!



I would suggest that we don't deal with the hypothetical at the moment but with the reality.

If we don't interviene NOW to cut across the BJ4BW arguments and put across a clear class position then the 'hypothetical' problem could become a real one longer term. And one does not interviene by condemning workers moving to defend tu rights and conditions as racist.


----------



## dennisr (May 23, 2009)

Following on from Milford Haven... (See post 1989 / 1790)

*Strike success at Lindsey Oil Refinery and Conoco*

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7317

_"A bit of France came to North Lincolnshire last week when around 1,000 construction workers walked off the job at Conoco and Lindsey Oil Refinery near Immingham.

At LOR, the shop stewards were all in a PJC (Project Joint Council) meeting with the management when news came through about South Hook. Hundreds immediately walked off site and then management walked out of the meeting!

The next day, a mass meeting voted to stay out until South Hook was sorted. Then a spontaneous march down the industrial site road took place picking up pickets at the adjacent Conoco gates leading to around 800 workers blocking the road and intersection with the main arterial road into Immingham.

The police were caught completely unawares with traffic blockaded back to the Docks one way and backing up to the M180 the other. When a police van eventually arrived, two nervous coppers got out and asked "Who's in charge?" which drew the response "We are!"

One spark commented "Great result today on the two Humber refineries getting to the main crossroads and disrupting the traffic for an hour and half, felt a little French for a time especially when plod turned up and did nothing!!" Even the sun came out!

Mobiles kept going off bringing news from other plants joining the sympathy strike. Plans were made to send pickets the next morning to those sites that still needed a push. No need, by evening the bosses had caved in at South Hook. *That's two rounds to the workers, now for the knock-out*!"_


----------



## dennisr (May 23, 2009)

Is it me or has no one else here noticed these rolling disputes going on?


----------



## nightbreed (May 23, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Is it me or has no one else here noticed these rolling disputes going on?



Not exactly being pushed in the press. I saw it mentioned on the BBC site but other than that............


----------



## tbaldwin (May 23, 2009)

Nigel said:


> People aren't allowed to move to other countries because of some bizzare mythological concept of localisation.
> 
> Do you not think that other cultures and people do not enrich, not only as far as selling their skills and labour but also culturally and intellectually. This should be held back by people who are afraid of change and have romantic and reactionary idealised concept of how things were in the past?



So should we all be pleased when migrants leave families and friends behind cos there enriching our culture?
Should we all be pleased when poorer nations lose skilled workers they need, cos there enriching our culture?


----------



## durruti02 (May 24, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Is it me or has no one else here noticed these rolling disputes going on?


 yep and no one is being sacked for walking off the job nor arrested for picketing nor sequesrated (?? spelling??) for secondary action .. 

the power of closed shop ( and labour shortage)  and mass action .. a simple message we need to heed


----------



## JHE (May 24, 2009)

dennisr said:


> Is it me or has no one else here noticed these rolling disputes going on?





durruti02 said:


> yep and no one is being sacked for walking off the job nor arrested for picketing nor sequesrated (?? spelling??) for secondary action ..



Sometimes, I think, the major media under-report disputes lest they 'give people ideas'.

In this case, though, I think it's more that for a while the disputes had a novelty value and were of interest to the commentariat, but now the news agenda has moved on and the interest of the commentators is elsewhere, mainly with the MPs' snouts-in-trough stuff.


----------



## dennisr (May 27, 2009)

An action plan for all sites
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7337

Some snips:
_Despite the recession, there is predicted to be significant growth in the engineering construction industry over the next decade due to the decommissioning of power stations and the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations. 

Union leaders are currently in negotiations with the employers' organisation about reviewing the NAECI for 2010. A fourth meeting takes place on 3 June which will be followed by a long awaited NAECI stewards' national meeting in Manchester on 5 June. This will hear a report back on negotiations and decide what action to take.

So far the trade union officials have dragged their feet but after the latest unofficial strikes they fear losing control. "It shocked me," Alun Rappell, GMB Wales regional organiser told the Financial Times (22 May) "I asked them to hold fire until Friday to allow this company [time], but overnight word of mouth got from site to site to site." _


----------



## Nigel (May 27, 2009)

tbaldwin said:


> So should we all be pleased when migrants leave families and friends behind cos there enriching our culture?
> Should we all be pleased when poorer nations lose skilled workers they need, cos there enriching our culture?



I don't think life, the world, people; are as simplistic as that


----------



## glenquagmire (Jun 11, 2009)

According to the Guardian website they've walked out again at Lindsey. Any more news?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 11, 2009)

glenquagmire said:


> According to the Guardian website they've walked out again at Lindsey. Any more news?


Just "hundreds out.  More soon".  Nothing on BBC yet.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 11, 2009)

Ah, BBC now has a ticker, but no content.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 11, 2009)

glenquagmire said:


> According to the Guardian website they've walked out again at Lindsey. Any more news?



To do with the results of the recent ballot, or even members not waiting for union action?
*Engineering construction workers ballot: End 'race to the bottom'*

_"AROUND 25,000 engineering construction workers, who build and maintain Britain's power stations and petrochemical sites, members of Unite and GMB trade unions, are to be balloted for official strike action. This is in pursuit of union demands to improve job security, health and safety, and pay and conditions.

This was the unanimous decision of the national stewards meeting held in Manchester on 5 June after hearing reports from national officers that the employers' organisation has 'offered' a pay freeze and refused most other demands including a union-monitored register of unemployed workers, in the review of the national agreement (NAECI) for 2010.

The employers' real intent is to undermine the NAECI and turn it into little more than a 'voluntary' code of practice so that pay and conditions can be eroded to boost their profits."_

_continues..._
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7432

Edit - the SP view (and that means the leadership in a few areas):
_"The unions will make every effort to make the ballot legally watertight but given the nature of the industry, it is almost inevitable that the employers will challenge it. In that case, armed with a big Yes vote, the unions should defy the anti-union laws and go ahead with strike action."_


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2009)

50 sacked apparently being the specific catalyst, on top of the stuff above


----------



## dennisr (Jun 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> 50 sacked apparently being the specific catalyst, on top of the stuff above



 - so the employers are trying to preempt then - lets see how they now try and deal with the results


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2009)

Risky strategy for the bosses considering the national implications of an _official_ all 20 000 workers out strike rather than only 3 or 4 out unoffically. It's going almost exactly as predicted after last time - they'd be straight back to undermining conditions asap - i wonder what plans they've been secretly putting place the last few months. But this time it looks like they're prepared to do it on a national basis - or at least risk it extending to the national level. Madness. They might well have ensured that the ballot gets a strike return.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Risky strategy for the bosses considering the national implications of an _official_ all 20 000 workers out strike rather than only 3 or 4 out unoffically. It's going almost exactly as predicted after last time - they'd be straight back to undermining conditions asap - i wonder what plans they've been secretly putting place the last few months. But this time it looks like they're prepared to do it on a national basis - or at least risk it extending to the national level. Madness. They might well have ensured that the ballot gets a strike return.



Absolutely - and add to that the additional kudos for the strike wave unwittingly initiated by the newspapers when they thought they had the construction workers on the same 'national' side - Here's hoping it bites all of them in the arse.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2009)

Reports of 900 sacked tonight - wildcats still spreading.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2009)

Confirmed - fucking hell, here we go.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 18, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> i wonder what plans they've been secretly putting place the last few months



They must think they've got something pretty bloody good; either that or they've entirely lost it.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 18, 2009)

Excellent, shouldn't be difficult to find some people who are actually prepared to work given the current unemployment levels.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 18, 2009)

It will be frustrating waiting for news about dispute but i wonder were these sackings will lead.


----------



## tangentlama (Jun 18, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> They must think they've got something pretty bloody good; either that or they've entirely lost it.



If you read the ACAS website, there's section on their training provision for employers which makes for very interesting reading.


----------



## treelover (Jun 18, 2009)

> Excellent, shouldn't be difficult to find some people who are actually prepared to work given the current unemployment levels.



Piss off knobhead,. those people have families, dependents, go to the Daily Mail and make your snide ignorant comments there


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 19, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> Excellent, shouldn't be difficult to find some people who are actually prepared to work given the current unemployment levels.


Scum.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jun 19, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Scum.



Lol someone call the whaaaaaaambulance, capitalism has won yet again


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 19, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> Lol someone call the whaaaaaaambulance, capitalism has won yet again



Has it?


----------



## dennisr (Jun 19, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Reports of 900 sacked tonight - wildcats still spreading.



Yep.

Yesterday the solidarity action spread in support of the over Shaw workers (sub-contractor at Lindsey) that had been laid off. Now Total, who run Lindsey, have gone on the offensive sacking 900 workers. It has now escalated dramatically! 

We urgently need trade union branch etc solidarity messages  of support sent to geminis@geminis.karoo.co.uk or texts sent to *********.

[edit - sorry tel number should read: 07706 710041]

Below are a list of those that came out yesterday, there will be more today:
Fiddlers Ferry, Drax, Eggborough, BP Saltend, South Hook, Aberthaw, Ratcliffe, Scunthorpe BOC, West Burton, Didcott, Staythorpe 

Pickets going back to most in am - news of mass sackings and realisation of whats at stake is likely to lead to more widespread support.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2009)

Time to dig those lists of Total forecourts out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 19, 2009)

Apparently those on Jacobs Babtie contracts (they being the main contractor at Lindsey)  have walked out at H point early this morning - if this spreads through the Jacobs Babtie workers then thing is going to go massive, they've got a finger in every pie going - every road build, every PPP/PFI project, every new hospital, every new school, refuse removal, transport...

edit: and it's becoming abundantly clear that there's been a blacklist operating for those involved in the last wildcats in feb


----------



## dennisr (Jun 19, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Time to dig those lists of Total forecourts out.



would really appreciate a pm'ed copy of those lists mate


----------



## dennisr (Jun 19, 2009)

more details of the latest sackings here:
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7464

_"It is clear now that the LOR bosses are using this dispute (caused by their own mis-management and their reneging on agreements made in February) to seek revenge for their forced climbdown by the strike earlier this year.

Taken with the leaked ECIA advice to employers on subverting the official union strike ballot, the bosses have declared war against the trade unions, shop stewards and the NAECI agreement.

That is why we appeal for your support. Unity is strength. Together we will win. AGAIN.

    * WITHDRAW THE 51 REDUNDANCIES
    * SHARE OUT THE WORK
    * PROPER CONSULTATION & NEGOTIATION

YESTERDAY'S MASS MEETING (Weds 17th) VOTED TO:

    * Continue the Strike at LOR until 51 redundancies withdrawn
    * Place pickets at all LOR gates and appeal to tanker drivers not to cross
    * Call for solidarity strike action across all NAECI sites

WHICH SITES ARE SUPPORTING STRIKE ALREADY:
Fiddlers Ferry (since Monday), Aberthaw (300 walked out yesterday), Conoco (2-300 walked yesterday and joined LOR pickets), Dragon, BOC Scunthorpe & Hartlepool Power Station

SITES BEING DIRECTLY APPEALED TO BY LOR PICKETS THIS MORNING:
Ferrybridge, Stanlow, BP Saltend, Eggborough, West Burton, Cottam, Ratcliffe, Staythorpe, Wilton and maybe more."_

More on the leaked ECIA document at the link above...


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 19, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> Lol someone call the whaaaaaaambulance, capitalism has won yet again


No, the enemy is showing itself.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jun 19, 2009)

Solidarity spreading...



> Wildcat strikes had already spread to several power stations and other terminals in the past few days as thousands of workers took sympathy action.
> 
> There were reports that contract workers at the Staythorpe power station in Nottinghamshire and Ferrybridge power station in Yorkshire walked out early on Friday after hearing the news.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...wn-threat-as-oil-refinery-strikes-spread.html


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 19, 2009)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Solidarity spreading...


Good stuff.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2009)

WTF?

They're sacking the strikers now?


----------



## dennisr (Jun 19, 2009)

Interesting report on SU site. I linked to an SP report above which included the contents of the SP's 18th June leaflet

The SU site reports:

"Copy of the Socialist Party leaflet put out on the 18th. It seems Bear Facts have started using our leaflet. When some of the comrades got to the sites they discovered groups of workers were giving out our leaflet themselves!"

Photos on the BBC website show pickets holding signs saying *Trade Union Jobs and Pay for ALL Workers* and *NO to cheap labour, YES to workers rights* etc. That's good - the ground is being cut away from the more reactionary slogans seen previously

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/8108434.stm (note the contradictory reporting with the quote from the 'on the spot' reporter as opposed to the image directly above...)


----------



## derf (Jun 19, 2009)

Just by way of a note, I did notice the news coverage of the sacking totally failed to mention the reason behind the strikes.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 20, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Scum.



Also it must be remember that these people unlike us will not have  an income at the end of the month ,week ,fortnight so are making genuine sacrifices


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 20, 2009)

ExtraRefined said:


> Excellent, shouldn't be difficult to find some people who are actually prepared to work given the current unemployment levels.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 21, 2009)

Anybody know if this, reported in Friday's _Times_ is accurate:


> Lindsey, one of Britain's biggest oil refineries, was hit by mass industrial action in January over the use of foreign workers. Hundreds of construction staff walked out after the company brought in Italians and Portuguese to build a new unit rather than use local employees.
> A representative of Unite told the BBC last night that staff had _believed there was an agreement not to cut any jobs while those foreign contactors were employed_.


Not trusting the capitalist press, I'm prepared to believe it's not. I hope it isn't.


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 21, 2009)

Forwarded from the Campaign Against Immigration Controls

Bob Archer,

Press and Website Officer,
National Shop Stewards Network

________________________________________

Subject: Solidarity with Sacked Lindsey Workers Monday 4-6pm

REINSTATE THE LINDSEY OIL REFINERY WORKERS NOW!
Following our conference today the Campaign Against Immigration Controls (CAIC)
calls for the immediate reinstatement of the workers who were sacked by Total,
Jacobs and other subcontractors at the Lindsey Oil refinery in Lincolnshire
last Thursday night. 
We are calling a solidarity protest at the Total headquarters in Watford on
Monday 22nd June, 4-6pm.
Why is our campaign supporting these sacked workers?
• We support the rights of all workers - regardless of their nationality or
immigration status - to organise in the workplace to protect and improve their
wages, conditions and livelihood.
• CAIC activists include many migrant workers whose conditions of work are
very precarious, like cleaners. These workers are often servicing the offices
of the rich and powerful but paid a pittance. Again and again migrant workers
who organise unions and fight for a living wage are victimised and sacked and
sometimes face detention and deportation. The Lindsey workers have also been
victimised for fighting back to protect their jobs. CAIC activists are also in
the GMB and Unite unions in struggle at Lindsey: we say that all workers should
make common cause against the bosses.
• CAIC supports the freedom of movement of workers. But we are opposed to
people being pushed around and uprooted by the bosses or their state. It is
clear to us that the posting of workers from Europe like this, housed in
barracks segregated from the rest of the workforce, is about breaking up
existing unions in order to undermine hard-won agreements and set in motion the
race to the bottom. We need workers' organisation and solidarity across borders
to stop this. So we say NO REDUNDANCES! NO VICTIMISTATION! and NO DEPORTATIONS!
• CAIC believes that there is plenty of useful work to be done. It is only
our insane capitalist economy, run for private profit, that makes desperately
needed projects unprofitable and sets worker against worker, from the same or
different nations. The Government should STOP THROWING MONEY AT THE BANKS and
invest in socially useful, clean and green industries and instead.
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
* Directions

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=wd...
Or Meet at Euston Station 3pm, call 07843 945 005


----------



## dennisr (Jun 22, 2009)

Messages of support

From Joe Higgins, Member of the European Parliament, the Socialist Party, Dublin, Ireland.
“The threatened sacking of 900 Lindsey workers by the Total oil company is an absolute outrage. As a newly elected MEP I will be raising your case in the European parliament. I would like to add that I will also be calling for the EU directives on ‘posted workers’ to be withdrawn as soon as possible because they are a licence for European companies to undermine trade union pay and conditions as part of national agreements”

Solidarity from Sven Naessens, Union Convenor at Total, Antwerp, Belgium.
“Will give support with email now, leaflet on Monday, and discussion with our management on why you have been sacked. The national union secretary has sent emails out to refineries in Belgium”

Rail, Maritime & Transport Union (RMT) from Alex Gordon (NEC)
“Solidarity to sacked Lindsey workers. We support your cause. Union jobs for trade union members.”

Matt Wrack, General Secretary of Fire Brigades Union
“Please pass on solidarity greetings to all sacked Lindsey workers from the Fire Brigades Union. Please let us know anything we can do to assist – including financial support, physical support on pickets or whatever is needed. We will circulate any such information throughout the union”

Dave Nellist, Socialist Party Councillor in Coventry
“Please pass on to your members that we in the Coventry trade union movement will be doing all we can to build support for your campaign for reinstatement”

Message to Gibbo (Keith Gibson) from young LOR striker!!
*“We’ll beat these all day – we’ll step it up a gear next week. I’m not giving my life, my kid’s life, or my girlfriend’s life up for no-one! We’ll win together. We’ll get a slice of the pie instead of the crumbs they want to take away from us. We will win!”*


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2009)

The deadline for re-applying for jobs (i.e the attempt to split the workforce) was this morning -anyone hear anything post it up plaese.

Tommorow is supposed to be a ntional day of action and also a national protest outside LOR- address:

LOR
Eastfield Road 
Immingham 
DN40 3LW


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 22, 2009)

> Hundreds of sacked oil workers have continued their protest outside the Lindsey Oil Refinery, by burning their dismissal notices in an act of defiance against French oil giants Total. Six hundred and fifty workers were sacked by Total, which runs the facility in North Lincolnshire. They were given until 5.00pm today to reapply for their jobs.



Link
BBC (got vid)



> Elsewhere, workers across the UK have walked out in sympathy. They include:
> 
> • 400 workers at two LNG plants in west Wales - South Hook and Dragon
> 
> ...



Any more?


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 22, 2009)

Theres an audio recording here of Total management and one of the sacked workers. Quite good interview for the Today programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8108000/8108720.stm


----------



## dennisr (Jun 22, 2009)

grogwilton said:


> Theres an audio recording here of Total management and one of the sacked workers. Quite good interview for the Today programme: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8108000/8108720.stm



The Total worker - John - is a member of the Socialist Party


----------



## dennisr (Jun 22, 2009)

Latest newsletter from SP:

ALL OUT FOR 'TOTAL' SHUTDOWN
SOLIDARITY WITH SACKED LINDSEY WORKERS
DEFEND TRADE UNIONISM & NAECI AGREEMENT

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7465

_"By dismissing 647 LOR workers,Total have declared war on trade unionism and the NAECI agreement. This dispute is no longer just about 51 sacked workers, its about the future of our industry. The employers want to break the solidarity of construction workers and smash effective trade unionism so that they can get rid of the national agreement to bring in cheap labour and drive down wages to boost their profits."_


----------



## grogwilton (Jun 22, 2009)

dennisr said:


> The Total worker - John - is a member of the Socialist Party



He argued his point well.


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 23, 2009)

small but vocal and visible demo at Watford today ..CAIC and Watofrd Trades Council .. where were Unite and GMB??? lol


----------



## dennisr (Jun 23, 2009)

According to the SP website, “[w]hilst we have had dozens of messages of support from other unions and other countries, Tommy Hardacre, our UNITE national officer, sent an email to regional officers on June 17th asking them to tell shop stewards at other sites not to support LOR’s action!

We have also been told by a reliable source that he has alleged that the strike is politically motivated by a socialist party.”

See more at http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7465

but further information from today (23rd):

Lindsey workers got a huge boost today as around 2,000 strikers and supporters marched and rallied outside Total’s oil refinery. The pressure of spreading unofficial action (Sellafield, Longannet power station and Coryton oil refinery have joined over 20 sites taking action) has forced both the GMB and Unite unions to now officially support the dismissed 647 workers. Union flags decorated the march giving a real feel of trade union power. At the rally GMB General Secretary Paul Kenny pledged “A solution we will have. A sell-out we won’t. And there will be no solution without all the dismissed workers being re-instated and the 51 sackings being rescinded.” Then he pledged £100,000 for a hardship fund which Unite will have to match.

Tommy Hardacre, the aforementioned Unite national officer also declared Unite’s official support for the sacked workers.

Total’s mass dismissals have back-fired on them. They have clearly been rocked by the spreading strikes and support for the Lindsey workers. Having insisted that there would be no negotiations until a return to work, they are now “actively encouraging” the contractors to seek talks. Workers are hopeful of a breakthrough but prepared for the long haul if that’s what it takes.

So that means *GMB official support* - which is useful


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 23, 2009)

dennisr said:


> We have also been told by a reliable source that he has alleged that the strike is politically motivated by a socialist party.”



damn i was only supporting it cos i thought it was a BNP strike!! 











(joke .. just in case )


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 24, 2009)

I don't think BNP support in the area can be wished away. See this election result from North Lincs in the recent European elections.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 24, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't think BNP support in the area can be wished away. See this election result from North Lincs in the recent European elections.



*sigh* who says "it can be wished away"

The difference between us and you is some of us are fighting to build an alternative pole of attraction in disputes like this one - unlike you, you cheap and distorted shot merchant who's only idea of 'activity' is try to desperately score 'holier-than-thou' 'points' on obscure (in terms of their relationship to such struggles...) bulletin boards.

Thread after thread with the same non-point - setting up a straw man to knock down - you are like a broken record, captain - yet you have the blind arrogance to accuse others of such...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 24, 2009)

If this bulletin board is that obscure why do you honour it with your presence and particularly with almost daily communiqués from the central committee of your particular Trotskyist sect? Building "an alternative pole of attraction", my arse, you're just trying to build your vanguard party. Some of us here know all about Trotskyists and how you operate, jumping on any bandwagon that's rolling.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 25, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> If this bulletin board is that obscure why do you honour it with your presence and particularly with almost daily communiqués from the central committee of your particular Trotskyist sect? Building "an alternative pole of attraction", my arse, you're just trying to build your vanguard party. Some of us here know all about Trotskyists and how you operate, jumping on any bandwagon that's rolling.



*850 workers are sacked. *

What do you do? - you spend you time making sectarian crap up. Easy labels read out of books for do-nothing idiots.

Some who delude themselves they are on the left are utterly irrelevant to real movements. You illustrate this point yet again and _still_ you have the gall to point at other folk when you should be looking closer to home. I suppose it takes all sorts of inflated egos.

Your arse? - its what you talk out of


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 25, 2009)

dennisr said:


> *850 workers are sacked. *
> 
> What do you do? -


You publicise your party, claim the credit, try to recruit more members.
It's despicable.
These workers don't need your "support".


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 25, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> These workers don't need your "support".



They certainly don't have any support worth mentioning from the likes of you.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jun 26, 2009)

Socialist Party report on victory at Total. It appears that all strikers have been reinstated, and that the workers who were originally made redundant will be offered jobs.

http://socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7482


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 29, 2009)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Socialist Party report on victory at Total. It appears that all strikers have been reinstated, and that the workers who were originally made redundant will be offered jobs.
> 
> http://socialistparty.org.uk/latest/7482





> The role of the LOR shop stewards and the strike committee was crucial in giving a clear uncompromising leadership. The shop stewards committee, under the suggestion of Socialist Party member Keith Gibson, was expanded into a strike committee in the second week of the dispute. By the end it included three Socialist Party members.
> The Socialist Party produced an almost daily newsletter that offered suggestions on the way forward for the strike, several of which were adopted. These newsletters were taken in their hundreds by pickets to other sites as far afield as Teesside, Elsmere port, South Wales and Nottinghamshire. As workers looked for ideas and showed their support for the Socialist Party 93 copies of The Socialist were sold during the course of fortnight.



In other words, it was us that done it!


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 29, 2009)

Great result and fair play to the SP for their support and involvement in it. Unlike others at least they had the nounce to look at this through a class analysis.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 29, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> In other words, it was us that done it!



15 paragraphs. You take one and claim that is all that was said.

People are then meant to take you seriously.

You really are a bit of an arsehole arn't you?

What was actually being said was - those workers are open to socialist ideas over nationalist slogans when such progressive ideas are on offer - with a case in point. Not only that but it was the tactics and strategy put forward by those socialists, and taken up by those workers, as their own, that WON the dispute in less than a week - a serious attack on all trade unionists completely brushed aside by a serious approach to class politics. A concept lost on an idiot like you though...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 29, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> You publicise your party, claim the credit, try to recruit more members.
> It's despicable.
> These workers don't need your "support".


 not in his party, but I would say it's absolutely essential, if the lessons were learnt, they need to be spread, and create more victories amongst the working class that it is desperate for them.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 29, 2009)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> not in his party, but I would say it's absolutely essential, if the lessons were learnt, they need to be spread, and create more victories amongst the working class that it is desperate for them.


That's just the point I was trying to make. The working class can and should fight these necessary battles themselves without interference from politically motivated groups seeking to exploit these struggles for their own political ends, which in this case are pretty dubious in that they as trotskyists they want to eventually impose on the working class the sort of state capitalist dictatorship and cooption of the unions into the state that existed in Russia already under Lenin and Trotsky.


----------



## dennisr (Jun 29, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's just the point I was trying to make. The working class can and should fight these necessary battles themselves without interference from politically motivated groups seeking to exploit these struggles for their own political ends, which in this case are pretty dubious in that they as trotskyists they want to eventually impose on the working class the sort of state capitalist dictatorship and cooption of the unions into the state that existed in Russia already under Lenin and Trotsky.



And as you showed in practice - your 'point' was a crass, trite, artifical and false one.

The political concerns of the SP  members who LED that dispute, respected for their tactical nouce and therefore chosen by their members was always FIRST and FOREMOST achieving the best for those they represented, fought alongside and live the same lives as. Your understanding of the SPs political outlook is only slightly 'deeper' than you 'concern' for the strikers.

Your 'point' - even when falsely, hypocritically and snidely put across, as it was (and as you always do...) - will be of absolutely no interest or relevance to those workers facing the loss of their livelihoods. You ACTUALLY treat these workers as though they are stupid. passive dupes of fantasy 'leninists'. Actually , they can think for themselves you idiot....

You could not give a flying fuck for those workers, only for your petty, fanciful sectarian opinons - so don't bother faining concern for their interests, you dishonest, hypocritical wanker. The fuckin irony in trying to attack the fantasy 'sectarian' interests of the 'leninist' straw men you try desperately to knock down in such a completely and ACTUALLY, in practice, sectarian and idiotic manner seems completely lost on you... but, hey, thanks for continuing to show up the utter bankruptcy of your own 'ideas'.

It is your own utterly bankrupt passivity and do-nothing hypocricy that is 'despicable' - it makes any 'crimes' you desperately try and pin on the SP pale into insignificance by comparison

Is that clear enough?


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 29, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> That's just the point I was trying to make. The working class can and should fight these necessary battles themselves without interference from politically motivated groups seeking to exploit these struggles for their own political ends, which in this case are pretty dubious in that they as trotskyists they want to eventually impose on the working class the sort of state capitalist dictatorship and cooption of the unions into the state that existed in Russia already under Lenin and Trotsky.



 hi jean luc ,, interested if u affiliated to anything .. i guess on paper i would be close to many of your position re leninism etc but on this i disagree on 2 reasons .. 1) many political activists are w/c and involved so are not outsiders ,. while there are instances of activists being forced to go against their TU instincts to follow a line equally parties like SP follow what workers have done 2) in almost all cases workers w/c are not ready with all the ideas, partly becuase they have not studied political history ( which of course can leasd to the wrong conclusions) but also becuase not being in an mutual aid organisation they are not able to resist reformism or compromise or whatever .. while part of me maybe thinks the spontaneous theory of revolution may be correct and all activists shoudl do something else and let people get on with things my experiance is that people are extremely grateful for help


----------



## dennisr (Jun 29, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> hi jean luc ,, interested if u affiliated to anything .. i guess on paper i would be close to many of your position re leninism etc but on this i disagree on 2 reasons .. 1) many political activists are w/c and involved so are not outsiders ,. while there are instances of activists being forced to go against their TU instincts to follow a line equally parties like SP follow what workers have done 2) in almost all cases workers w/c are not ready with all the ideas, partly becuase they have not studied political history ( which of course can leasd to the wrong conclusions) but also becuase not being in an mutual aid organisation they are not able to resist reformism or compromise or whatever .. while part of me maybe thinks the spontaneous theory of revolution may be correct and all activists shoudl do something else and let people get on with things my experiance is that people are extremely grateful for help



my guess - He's a SPGBer  - but not active (if any of them can be considered 'active'...). I think you have very little in common

either that or he is a starship captain (federation...)


----------



## durruti02 (Jun 29, 2009)

dennisr said:


> my guess - He's a SPGBer  - but not active (if any of them can be considered 'active'...). I think you have very little in common
> 
> either that or he is a starship captain (federation...)


 hey i LIKE the SPGB!!  .. well i think i do .. on a few levels .. the idea you need a majority before you move to revolution as opposed to a Blanquist/Leninist 'putschist' position .. and i am sure we agree on leninism and trotskyism in general .. and i suspect i could trace ideological roots back to them and the glasgow anarchist commnists of the 1920s! actually not sure i know that much about 'em tbh though .. some Kudos of being the oldest left current in the UK! 

but yes they seem very sectarian sadly and don't seem to actually do anything


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 29, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> while part of me maybe thinks the spontaneous theory of revolution may be correct and all activists shoudl do something else and let people get on with things my experiance is that people are extremely grateful for help


I think you are right here. People on strike, etc are grateful for help as long as it's without evident strings. That's what happened in the 1970s with Tony Cliff's group (then IS, now the SWP). They helped the shop steward's movement of the time with research, publicity, printing, etc and some of the stewards joined the Cliff group. But they proved not to be dupes. When Cliff tried to impose Leninism on them they wouldn't swallow it and in the end Cliff had to expel them for "economism". I predict the same thing will happen with Militant's shop steward and trade unionist recruits (as, maybe, when they try to impose the "New Workers Party" line on them -- see the thread on this). We'll see. In the meantime I suppose there's no harm in militant trade unionists using Militant for their legitimate trade union ends, as long as they do it "without illusions" as some no doubt are doing. Trade unionism is in fact a higher degree of working class consciousness than Leninism, a product of the backward conditions in Tsarist Russia.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 29, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> I think you are right here. People on strike, etc are grateful for help as long as it's without evident strings. That's what happened in the 1970s with Tony Cliff's group (then IS, now the SWP). They helped the shop steward's movement of the time with research, publicity, printing, etc and some of the stewards joined the Cliff group. But they proved not to be dupes. When Cliff tried to impose Leninism on them they wouldn't swallow it and in the end Cliff had to expel them for "economism". I predict the same thing will happen with Militant's shop steward and trade unionist recruits (as, maybe, when they try to impose the "New Workers Party" line on them -- see the thread on this). We'll see. In the meantime I suppose there's no harm in militant trade unionists using Militant for their legitimate trade union ends, as long as they do it "without illusions" as some no doubt are doing. Trade unionism is in fact a higher degree of working class consciousness than Leninism, a product of the backward conditions in Tsarist Russia.



Lenin dies and goes to hell.

Satan, puts his soul into a cauldron with boiling water, and shuts the lid.

After a week, there is turmoil in the pot. Satan lifts the lid and finds the souls shouting: "it is way too hot in here! we want out, long live the revolution!"

so he takes Lenins soul out and throws him into the pot with boiling oil. Again after two weeks a turmoil. He checks the pot and finds the souls shouting: "it is way too hot - it stinks - we want out! long live the revolution"

so again Satan takes Lenins soul out and puts him into the pot of heated shit. No 3 days pass before the turmoil. "This is no living condition! It stinks, its hot we want out! Long live the revolution!"


At the end of his wits, Satan calls Saint Peter n Heavens.

"Pete, listen, few weeks ago i have been sent Lenins soul, and obviously this was a mistake. He doesnt fit in, he protests and creates tourmoil. Must be he belongs up to you, i suppose"

St. Peter agrees and Lenins soul is transfered to heaven

one week passes, two weeks,

after 2 months, Satan cannot hold back, and calls St. peter again.

"So, how is Lenin doing up at yours ?"

"Good you called Satan, I meant t thank you for ages. Lenin indeed is a great addition up here. He is playing cards and chess with me and the other angels; we have debates and discussions. Life is jolly!"

"You play cards, and chess and debate ? But what does God say to that?"

"God ? What God ? God does not exist!"


----------



## Jean-Luc (Jun 30, 2009)

I don't know about his soul, but I thought that when he died his body was embalmed and put in a mausoleum, just as they used to do with deceased Roman Emperors. And Trotsky despite being a westernised intellectual went along with this. Having said this, I agree Lenin would have turned in his grave if he knew.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jun 30, 2009)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't know about his soul, but I thought that when he died his body was embalmed and put in a mausoleum, just as they used to do with deceased Roman Emperors. And Trotsky despite being a westernised intellectual went along with this. Having said this, I agree Lenin would have turned in his grave if he knew.


agreed!


----------



## durruti02 (Aug 20, 2009)

new dispute at Uskmouth Power Station 

"I would like to appeal to all construction workers on behalf of the unemployed cosntruction workers who have been demonstrating outside Uskmouth Power Station this week, highlighting the fact that local workers are being discriminated against & the Blue Book agreement is not being adhered to at the plant.

The 2 demos we have had this week as been well attended of around 80 - 100, but we need to show our strength and feeling over further attacks on our national agreements. We are also getting support from other unions from outside the industry such as the RMT & NUM. We are also producing a letter in Polish, German and other laguages to appeal to the workers on site whose lives are at threat because of the lack of health and safety. Union officials on adjoining site at Uskmouth are also trying to find out if they are getting the correct rates for the jobs.

There is a further demo next Monday 24th August start 6.00am, within the first week of September there will be a National organised union demo where there will be free coaches laid on to get workers from around the country to come down on Mass.

I will let everyone know the exact date and more details by the weekend. The situation at Uskmouth needs to be resolved Siemens and management are getting away with blue murder.

Mike John


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 7, 2009)

Union Strike Threat At Major Energy Plants

12:19pm UK, Friday September 04, 2009

Britain faces a new threat of fuel shortages and power cuts as workers at some
of the country's biggest oil refineries and power stations prepare to strike.

Total Oil Refinery Workers Rally

The bitter row over foreign workers sparked wildcat strikes earlier this year

Shutdowns could come after union members voted over whether to stage official
action over the hiring of cheaper foreign labour.

The result of a ballot of GMB union members was revealed to employers earlier
this week, including energy groups BP and Shell.

Sky News understands that the vast majority of the 7,000 GMB union members at
seven locations across the country have voted in favour of industrial action.

The ballot follows months of wildcat strikes sparked by the use of foreign
workers at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire.



Fellow union Unite, which represents the remainder of the 30,000-strong
workforce, has also been balloting its members.

The results are to be announced next week, but Sky News has been told that they
will show overwhelming member support for strike action.

Union officials are due to meet with employers later but it is understood that
workers' leaders are determined to take action to force companies to stick to
national collective pay deals.

The unions are also pushing for a pay rise, a national register of workers'
skills and an agreement to allow union representatives to bring up grievances on
sites.

It is likely the two unions will co-ordinate any decision over walkouts.

The seven sites at risk are BP's Forties pipeline facility at Grangemouth, the
Ineos refinery at Grangemouth, Sellafield, Shell's refinery at Stanlow, RWE's
power plants at Staythorpe in Nottinghamshire and Aberthaw in South Glamorgan
and Chevron's refinery in Pembroke.


----------



## dennisr (Sep 8, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> Union Strike Threat At Major Energy Plants




All been building for some time now:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7654

_"The mood was one of workers' solidarity, as one worker said: "We are not against Polish workers, we are against those above them". A steward reported that when he was working in Plymouth, Polish workers went on strike with British workers and joined the union because they found out that the company was exploiting them. The union then won them improved pay and conditions.

A solidarity appeal in Polish, Hungarian and German has been produced by Socialist Party members for workers to join the union and support the campaign of British and Irish construction workers for jobs on the site.

Subsequent protests have been smaller but the anger has not dissipated. Workers are gearing up for a big protest on 7 September, when workers from all over the country will be rallying at Uskmouth."_


----------



## durruti02 (Sep 10, 2009)

From: Cardiff Rail
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: Uskmouth Blockade, 7th September 2009


Brothers and Sisters, Just a quick report about the blockade at Uskmouth this morning.  Held in at the Uskmouth plant, on lower wages and poorer conditions than they would have to pay UK workers. It was well attended, with somewhere between 150 and 200 protesters taking part.  We formed up just outside the main gates at about 5.30am, and successfully prevented any of the morning shift workers from getting into work between then, and just before 9am, when the Police moved the protesters back. 

Organised by UNITE, the GMB were also present to show solidarity, as well as the Socialist Party, SWP, Youth Fight For Jobs, and of course the RMT.  A couple of people promoting the BNP as "a viable protest vote" were also present, but their hateful diatribe was poorly received by all those present. There will almost certainly be more protests at Uskmouth (and Aberthaw and Milford Haven too) although details of when they might be haven't been released yet.

Click on the links for a few photos: - 
http://www.rmtcardiffrail.org.uk/images/uskmouth/SDC10270.JPG 
http://www.rmtcardiffrail.org.uk/images/uskmouth/SDC10275.JPG

And one of the ominpresent rozzers!!

http://www.rmtcardiffrail.org.uk/images/uskmouth/SDC10276.JPG

Sky News is also running the story at: -

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK..._Home_Grown_Workers_In_UK_Jobcentre_Vacancies

Thanks to all who sent messages of support and solidarity - these were passed on to the UNITE Officials present. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you need any further details.

Best wishes to you all as always, Greg
Greg Harrison
Secretary - RMT Cardiff Rail (0294) Branch 118 Court Road Grangetown Cardiff CF11 6SE 
Email: cardiffrail@rmt.org.uk
Website:  www.rmtcardiffrail.org.uk


----------

