|
ANOTHER Solidarity Trade Union official has attacked the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC).
At the beginning of December, Solidarity General Secretary Patrick Harrington was highly critical of the STUCs decision to poke its nose in the internal affairs of another country. Here, the STUC wanted to politicise a UEFA Europa League football match by calling on Celtic supporters to wave Palestinian flags at a game against Israeli team Hapoel Tel Aviv FC.
At the time, Mr. Harrington defended the right of trade unionists to organize at football grounds. However, he noted:
“If the STUC wants to demonstrate, why not demonstrate in support of the Diageo workers in Kilmarnock and Port Dundas in Glasgow? Around 900 people will be thrown on the scrap heap if Diageo go ahead and axe their jobs.
In July, around 20,000 people marched through the centre of Kilmarnock to protest against the job cuts. Since then the STUC hasn’t organized a similar-sized demonstration. Why not? Is it more interested in Palestine than Scotland?”
Now Solidarity National Executive member David Kerr has joined the attack on the STUC for their failure to defend workers at Diaego’s plants in Kilmarnock and Port Dundas.
Mr Kerr said that he couldn’t believe how quickly the STUC campaign had foundered and wondered if it was singing from a different hymn-sheet.
“Look at how the campaign kicked off to save jobs in Kilmarnock. In late July last year, around 20,000 people joined a protest march against the closure of the Diageo plant. This was absolutely magnificent turn out – the entire population of Kilmarnock is only 44,000.”
Like many other trade unionists, Mr. Kerr thought that this massive demonstration would have acted as the springboard for further action. “Similar sized marches should have taken place in all of Scotland’s main cities and towns.”
However, no industrial action was called at any of the threatened plants and no further mass protests were held. The STUC did organize a massive 450,000 e-mail petition to Diageo bosses and leading shareholders. However, there doesn’t seem to have been any follow up to this.
Crucially, there was no militant action on the ground. There’s no evidence to show that the STUC had even considered occupying the sites. Why didn’t they follow the lead shown by workers all over Britain and Eire who have occupied plants at Visteon, Waterford Crystal, Thomas Cook, Prisme and Vestas? In these occupations against closures, concessions have been won.
The STUC hadn’t even pressed the case for nationalization – or the break-up of Diageo itself.
He said that he couldn’t believe his own ears when he heard the news that the STUC – and more specifically the Unite and GMB trades unions – had surrendered to Diageo.
“They simply closed down their campaign against the closure of drinks giant Diageo’s Johnnie Walker’s bottling plant in Kilmarnock and Port Dundas distillery and cooperage in Glasgow.”
Mr. Kerr queried the reasoning behind this decision. He accepted that the workers had received increased redundancy payments. However, at the end of the day, 200 jobs were lost in Glasgow and 700 were thrown on the scrap heap in Kilmarnock.
“I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is there something going on in the background here? The STUC seems to be singing from a different hymn-sheet. The unions should have fought tooth and nail to protect these jobs. Yet the campaign was an abject failure. Why?
Any prolonged industrial action would have put more pressure on Gordon Brown and Labour. The joint leaders of Unite - Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson – are desperate for a fourth Labour term. They say that Labour must be re-elected and that Unite should work for a Labour victory in the next election.
Has this desperation for a Labour victory affected the thinking – and actions - of the unions? The lack of any industrial action in the run up to the General Election will give Labour an easier ride.
Like all trade unionists, I’m dreading any future Tory government. However, it looks like the established unions are deliberately going soft on Labour. This begs the question: are the unions now abandoning the fight for jobs for a longer-term political objective – another Labour victory at the polls?”
|
Comments
With respect to the elections, I don’t think that it’s right that some unions make an official recommendation on what way their members and supporters should vote.
I’ve noticed that many unions act as cheer leaders and groupies for the Labour Party. Solidarity Trade Union doesn’t. STU recognizes that there is a fine line between basic trade union work and politics. But Solidarity doesn’t cross that line. Its focus is defending the rights of its members and workers generally.
As a free, autonomous Nationalist trade union, Solidarity does not dictate to its members and supporters who they should vote for. Neither does it tell them what political parties they can or can’t join. Politically, they are entitled to exercise their own judgement on politics.
That said, if any Solidarity Trade Union members or supporters are standing for election, I wish them good luck.
I think it’d be great if candidates could mention that they are members or supporters of Solidarity Trade Union. This could be via their election literature, adverts, or links to the STU web-site, via the candidates party web-site(s) or personal social networking sites.
I know that since early September last year, STU has been working to widen its 'circle of exposure' to sections of society as well as the general public. The general election offers an ideal opportunity to increase this exposure.