WE WORK for the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). We're charged with delivering the government's education policies. They want to reduce our staff by 31%.That'll make Blair's election mantra "Education, education!" The other third has been cut or privatised!
The civil service is a major employer in Sheffield. Jobs were relocated here after Thatcher's manufacturing massacre.
But what's left of the steel industry is still being downsized - 700 jobs are going at the Finnish-owned plant Outu Kumpu and last week Corus announced 100 job losses in Rotherham.
And now the civil service is being massacred too, by Gordon Brown. As well as the DfES cuts, 1,300 job losses are planned in the Learning and Skills Council and a total of 30,000 from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
All this prompted our union branch to call, with trades council support, a Sheffield March for Pensions, Jobs and Services, with the aim of linking together public and private sector workers along with community campaigns.
And we couldn't have timed it better. DWP members are already taking strike action over job cuts and privatisation. Local government workers are balloting for action to protect their pensions. (See below)
We Want Our Buses Back are campaigning against fare rises and service cuts. Three fire stations face closure. Local NHS Trusts are £16 million in deficit, and it is certain that they won't claw back this money at the expense of the privateers!
And the council are proposing a 165% rise in community care charges! We see this march as the beginning of the city's fightback against New Labour's neo-liberal policies.
And all these attacks on jobs and services highlight for us, as socialists, the need for a political alternative for working class people.
We need a new mass workers' party and urge people to attend our campaign meeting after the demo and to come to the national Campaign for a New Workers' Party conference on 19 March in London.
25 February. Assemble 11am outside the DfES building (bottom of Moorfoot, Sheffield).
Grosvenor House Hotel, Charter Square. Main speaker Dave Nellist, Socialist Party councillor, Coventry.
19 March, University of London Union, Malet Street, London WC1. www.cnwp.org.uk
There is a growing awareness that if management refuse fair and just settlements in DWP then national civil service-wide action draws inexorably closer, as PCS members struggle to protect their interests against the cuts and privatisation agenda.
Management were shaken by the huge support for the two-day strike in January. The action had real impact. Many reps said turnout was even better than the civil service-wide day of action on 5 November 2004. Recruitment to PCS has increased and there was a marked increase in managers joining the action.
The political campaign continues. General secretary Mark Serwotka and DWP group officers Jane Aitchison and Keith Wylie gave evidence at the DWP parliamentary select committee.
They exposed management complacency and arrogance in refusing to acknowledge the growing service delivery problems arising from their "modernisation" ie cuts programme.
National action and the overtime ban are the keys to building pressure on management to settle. The union has organised weekend pickets to build the overtime ban.
The equivalent of 5,400 staff years are currently being worked in overtime, which is a key factor in avoiding a total collapse. Imposing a full ban would be like having 5,400 workers permanently on strike!
PCS has correctly rejected the failed methods of so-called "selective" action, where the leadership would "choose" areas for long-term strike action, in order to carry the burden of the campaign.
The GEC is building support for "targeted" action, where branches can deliver effective short-term strikes, especially, for example, where staff shortages are at their worst or where overtime is being worked.
Reps are confident another two-day strike for March can be delivered if no settlement is reached. Bizarrely, the unrepresentative small left groups who spend most of their efforts denigrating the GEC and National Executive Committee, rather than attacking management, are calling for a de-escalation, claiming two days is too much for members.
Effective campaign work is building pressure on management and must be increased. The excellent demonstration at DWP's recruitment "Jobs Fairs" in Scotland sharply exposed what services could be lost if management plough on regardless with their cuts.
PCS pressure has secured talks with management. Unless there are concessions that go some way to relieving the pressures on members, further action will be necessary.
PCS is fully committed to a negotiated settlement, but not at any price. If these talks fail the GEC will call a further two-day strike for March.
The DWP GEC wants a halt to the cuts while a proper review process is put in place to identify and resolve operational and staffing problems, a no compulsory redundancy agreement, a proper and credible staffing scheme, additional staffing to be deployed on the basis of operational need and a stop to the many attacks on terms and conditions, particularly around managing attendance.
The vast bulk of reps and members have real confidence in the campaigning, socialist leadership at Group and national level in PCS - management know this too, their wise move would be to settle now.
The vast majority of union members, having supported the two-day strike in January, are backing the union with the ban. There are, however, a minority who seem to be putting a little extra cash now before the threat of a further 15,000 job losses to add to the 15,000 already made by New Labour.
This minority fails to realise that by working overtime we take the pressure off the employer and help them shed jobs. The two PCS branches in Leicester intend to continue the discussion with members about why the overtime ban is crucial to the campaign, even if we have to get up early at the weekend to have that debate through pickets!
Already our picket lines appear to be bringing success. After initially offering overtime to benefit processing staff at both the Leicester Pensions Centre and the Jobcentre Plus Benefit Delivery Centre, management have decided that it isn't worth it. They have to put up with our presence outside the buildings and hardly anyone has taken up their offer. In short their overtime plans have been a total waste of taxpayers' money.
We now have to convince the few frontline staff in Jobcentre Plus conducting interviews on Saturday, to stand in solidarity with their benefit-processing comrades and PCS in refusing to help the government out of the crisis they have caused in our service by their unjustified cuts in staffing.
So I suppose it might be a few more early Saturday mornings for me and other PCS comrades, but it will be well worth it when we win the campaign to protect jobs and services and give Blair and Brown a bloody nose into the bargain.
A STRIKE ballot has now started of 1.5 million workers across Britain who are members of the local government pensions scheme (LGPS).
The dispute centres on proposals to scrap the "85-year rule" which allows members of the pension scheme to retire at 60 on a full pension, if their age and length of service adds up to 85. 90% of men and 65% of women currently in the scheme would be eligible to retire under this rule.
The plans to abolish the rule and therefore raise the minimum retirement age for most to 65, has enraged local government workers and other members in the scheme, who are scattered across the public sector in areas such as fire control rooms, police and the probation service.
The real facts about the local government pension scheme have been buried under a mountain of vile propaganda and lies in some of the tabloid press.
Unlike MPs, local government workers do not retire on gilt-edged pensions and many will face poverty in retirement.
73% of elderly pension fund members are women and nearly 60% will work part time. The average pension for a woman in the scheme is £31 a week and 75% of all LGPS pensions are under £96 a week. Scheme members pay 6% of their earnings for this.
The leadership of UNISON, TGWU, GMB and other trade unions continue to defend their financial support for New Labour, saying they get to influence New Labour policies.
It is ironic that unions like PCS, NUT and FBU, who do not donate to New Labour, have successfully fought off attacks on their pension scheme.
This was achieved by the threat of united strike action across the public sector, exposing the myth that donating money to New Labour can win concessions for trade unionists.
THE RECALL Fire Brigades Union (FBU) conference in Southport on 16 February discussed a proposed deal on their pensions dispute on offer from the government.
The proposals marked a further retreat by the government on its plans to increase the pension age from 50 to 55 for existing scheme members, although the package on offer had some detrimental proposals for existing members and a proposed new scheme for new entrants.
The scheme for new entrants would see the normal pension age increase to 60 and a lower contribution rate of 8.5%, as opposed to the 11% currently paid by firefighters.
Other concessions from the government included the right of retained firefighters to be included in the pension scheme and to retain their current injury pension provisions.
And, the government's offer also proposed a two-tier ill-health pension provision - a significant issue for firefighters, given the high rate of accident and injury on the job.
The conference agreed to carry out a consultation of all its members and branches and committees which would report back to another recall FBU national conference sometime in the middle of March.
Although the consultation process will discuss whether or not strike action is necessary to achieve any "remaining objectives", at this stage the union is not starting a ballot for strike action as it had originally intended.
Whilst there were concerns raised about the rights of future scheme entrants and the two-tier ill-health provision arrangements, the mood of the conference was that this was probably the best deal that could be achieved by negotiation at this stage and that they would have to come back to fight another day on the issue of new entrants.
The union had received legal advice from John Hendy QC that argued that if the union had balloted for strike action just on changes to new entrants, rather than on changes affecting both existing members and new entrants, then that ballot would be likely to be successfully challenged by the employers.
Emergency resolutions from London and West Midlands which argued that "conference does not accept that the negotiations thus far have achieved the basis of a settlement... and... instructs the Executive Council to conduct a ballot immediately of all FBU members with the intent to take discontinuous strike action", were withdrawn.
An amendment from the Northern Ireland FBU argued that the deal was the best that could be "achieved by negotiation" rather than "with or without strike action" as the EC's original emergency resolution said. And it added that the final decision on accepting or rejecting the offer should be taken by another recall conference rather than the NEC.
This resolution, moved by Tony Maguire, a member of the Socialist Party in Northern Ireland, was eventually the only counter-proposal to the EC's resolution. It was passed instead of the EC emergency resolution.
It looks likely that the offer will be accepted by FBU members who will see that the government has retreated once again, faced with the threat of strike action.
However, there is a realisation that issues still remain to be decided on new entrants and ill health, which may require industrial action at some stage.
Local government unions are now the only section of public-sector workers that have not seen a retreat from the government on the issue of increasing the retirement age.
It looks likely that these unions, which are currently balloting for action, will take strike action on 4 April.
Unions that are not affiliated to the Labour Party are the ones that have forced concessions from the government. Affiliated unions, like UNISON led by Dave Prentis, have claimed that their affiliation to Labour would allow them 'influence' in winning a similar deal to 'ring fence' the conditions of existing members.
THIS IS going to be an essential conference for every young person in England and Wales who is thinking about how to change the world, who is fed up with the daily grind of low-paid work and of the student experience of debt and poverty and fees.
Only one week to go until the International Socialist Resistance (ISR) and Socialist Students annual national conference and the resolutions are still coming in.
From what we have received so far it looks like it's going to be a very political and wide-ranging conference.
To give readers a taste of what they can expect please just have a look at our packed agenda!
We will start the day with our opening Fight for your future! rally with guest speakers from the Bolivia Solidarity campaign, the national convenor of the PCS youth network (personal capacity) and the Jean Charles de Menenzes campaign, as well as speakers from ISR and Socialist Students.
After lunch we will break down into groups to discuss some of the main issues we face and some of the most important questions for socialists.
ISR and Socialist Students are democratic organisations and as such we will take votes on all the resolutions that have been submitted and on electing new co-ordinating committees.
So far we have received dozens and they will all be available to read on our websites asap - www.socialiststudents.org.uk
They cover a wide range of issues from the environment and climate change to ASBOs, there is a resolution on football and one on how we can work with the trade unions. All of these and many more will be discussed and debated.
To finish our conference we will have a Do you want to change the world? closing rally with an eye-witness report from the World Socialist Forum and the revolution in Venezuela, and an anti-fascist student activist from Belgium.
If you or anyone you know has something to say on any of these issues come along and get your voice heard.
THIS YEAR, applications to university fell for the first time in six years. The cause is almost certainly the introduction of £3,000 per year 'top-up' fees; these worry many A-level students already concerned by student debt.
The introduction of the £1,000 fee during the first New Labour government had a similar effect, as will further planned increases. If we don't fight back, universities will once again become playgrounds for the rich, with mere crumbs for talented working-class students through scholarships and bursaries.
Increasing fees also affect the courses that students are likely to study - longer courses that don't much increase employability may be discontinued. Whole areas of learning may be lost as 'unprofitable' departments close.
This new fees income is not going to university staff, who just balloted successfully for strike action over pay, or into better education for most students, who see only cuts, closures and privatisation on their campuses. To defeat fees, students' and workers' struggles must be linked into a united, national campaign against the marketisation of higher education.
The National Union of Students' (NUS) current strategy is to make links with teaching and lecturing unions - a welcome step. This coalition's demand, however, is to keep fees at £3,000 - this is a mistake when there is the money in society to pay for free education with a living grant.
What's more, their main activity is lobbying MPs, but none of the Westminster parties is a reliable defender of education: only a new mass workers' party will fight to end cuts and privatisation.
Swansea students have taken mass action to defend courses, services and accom-modation. Anger exploded when management plans to close the Natural Science Library were leaked.
When the students union called a demonstration on 20 February, 300 students marched through campus. Outside Abbey administration building, they poured into the building, sitting in the hallways and staircases and chanting.
University management refused any dialogue and the police threatened to "peacefully remove" students from the Abbey. Eventually university management agreed to meet student representatives on 22 February when the students union will organise another demonstration.
Socialist Students explained we should focus anger not just on university management but on the government's plans for education as a whole.
ON 16 February University of Sussex students demonstrated against the lack of lectures and seminars, books and food provision. Many students receive as few as four hours teaching a week despite paying fees of up to £1,500.
Many of these 'hours' take place in overcrowded classrooms. Some seminars which had 20 people in them now have around 60. In others a weekly seminar AND lecture has been replaced by a weekly seminar OR a lecture.
Students were told 'to organise their own seminars' when they complained about the lack of teaching, yet the university still greedily snatches these students' fees as if it plays an active role in their education.
MARK SERWOTKA, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) has agreed to speak at the opening rally of the Campaign for a New Workers' Party conference. Coventry Socialist Party councillor, Dave Nellist will also be speaking as well as a councillor from WASG, the new left formation in Germany.
This conference is an opportunity to discuss, debate and plan the next steps to take forward the campaign. Activists and supporters from different areas will be able to meet and decide how they can work together to build support for the idea of a new mass workers' party.
Coming up to the local elections in May, many people are again going to be asking which party represents them and are again going to come to the conclusion that the three main parties only act in the interests of big business.
By putting forward the idea that a new workers' party can be built and by taking active steps towards this, workers and others who are disillusioned with mainstream politics will see that an alternative is possible.
As an initial national conference, this is an important event for the development of the campaign and all supporters should attend, if possible, and should invite others to do so too.
Email [email protected] or write to CNWP, PO Box 858, London E11 1YG if you would like to attend. The attendance fee is £5 and cheques should be made payable to CNWP.
More details will appear at www.cnwp.org.uk when available.
"The reason I have signed up is simple. The fact is that I used to be a big New Labour supporter but have come to realise that they have turned into the 'old Conservatives' intent on privatising health, public transport and services, schools etc.
Enough is enough! We need to get a party with socialist values that feels only public ownership can be trusted to run our health service, schools, public transport & utilities."
"It is my 'gut' instinct that tells me of the need for a new party, based on socialism offering a new radical alternative to the present main parties. It is said that 'instinct' is an automatic impulse that nature uses as a response to danger, in order for its survival. My instinct tells me that the working class of this country is in danger from New Labour's policies and needs to take appropriate action.
My instinct tells me that:
New Labour's push towards more privatisation of our services will not, in the long run, be for the benefit of the working class.
The welfare state is being dismantled.
More jobs in this country are being lost and not replaced, leaving a legacy of unemployment and deprivation.
At the next general election, New Labour's policies will be indistinguishable from the other main parties - so the Blairite policies will be carried on.
The quicker we get a new party, representing the working class, the better it will be for everyone. That is why I support the Campaign for a New Workers' Party."
These are two comments submitted by recent signatories to the declaration for a new workers' party. The first is from a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU) and the second is from Tony Benn's 1979 election agent who resigned from the Labour Party after 30 years of membership.
Both were supporters of the Labour Party who are now looking elsewhere since the move to the right under Blair and both have stated their wholehearted support for the campaign.
These comments give an idea of the potential that exists for a new workers' party that would genuinely represent the working class and stand on a programme of anti-cuts, closures and privatisation.
Another member of the national executive of the Public and Commercial Services Union, Chris Morrison has signed up in support of the campaign in a personal capacity.
On a recent library strike, 16 out of the 26 workers present at a London workplace signed the declaration.
Socialist Party branches should aim to visit local workplaces in the next fortnight to publicise the declaration and the conference.
Supporters should pass the declaration around their workplace, trade union branch, college or community to build support and discuss the idea of a new party.
Write to the national and local media to advertise the national conference and local launch meetings as well as the campaign in general.
23 February 7.30pm. 320 Brixton Road, London SW9.
Speakers include: Lewisham Socialist Party Councillor Ian Page.
23 February 7.30pm. William Morris Centre, Walthamstow.
25 February 2pm. Goldsmiths College, Lewisham Way, Room MB2106.
I March 7.30pm. Charterhouse-in-Southwark, 40 Tabard Street (near Borough tube.)
9 March, 7.30pm, Casa Bar, Hope Street.
14 March 7pm, Friends Meeting House, Mount Street.
BRITISH GAS is increasing prices by 22%, the second rise in six months; most household energy bills will probably now exceed £1,000. Newspapers call it the biggest gas price rise in British history.
We're told to exercise 'choice' by switching supplier but four other major energy companies also increased prices! Energy isn't a 'consumer choice' - it's an essential service without which we cannot lead our lives. And one 'choice' we certainly don't have is to buy from a non-profit-making nationalised company.
While British Gas shareholders last year divided the spoils of £337 million profits (up 64% on 2004), families struggled to foot gas bills that grew 66% in two years.
The price rises' impact will be felt by 1.5 million UK families living in 'fuel poverty' (or spending over 10% of income on energy costs).
The number of such families had come down from a staggering four million in 2000 but now another 250,000 families are tipped over the edge. The social costs include increased ill-health, thousands of winter deaths, more social exclusion and an adverse impact on children's education.
The 1986 flotation of British Gas was the most expensive privatisation of a public utility. It's still costing us dear. Those with big share portfolios grow very fat indeed, while most of us struggle to pay hyper-inflating household bills. Very few of us will see wage increases of comparable size.
The poll tax impoverished many families until it was defeated by a strong working-class movement comprising public demonstrations and 'can't pay, won't pay' campaigns. Perhaps a similar fight could achieve the renationalisation of public utilities, transport and services!
TONY BLAIR recently met and welcomed the NHS Partners Network, a coalition of 'independent' private sector healthcare companies who intend to privatise operations. Up to 40% of operations carried out by private firms will be performed for the NHS by 2008.
All this is a dagger at the health service's heart. Bringing in the private sector could fragment the NHS and force the closure of traditional NHS sites currently providing free services. The private healthcare sector hopes that the service gets ever more dependent on the private market.
Blair's enthusiasm for privatisation seems to know no limits despite the chaos brought to the NHS by the contracting out of home oxygen supplies to private companies this month.
One patient died after the new system broke down and emergency oxygen supplies took nine hours to arrive. Thousands of other people with breathing difficulties suffered as the privatised system under-estimated how many people would need the service.
The Socialist Party's new leaflet NHS - campaign to stop cuts and closures on the crisis in the health service covers the perils of privatisation. It also explains how huge deficits in the NHS Trusts are provoking big campaigns of patients and health workers to stop cutbacks and closures of wards or whole hospitals.
These local 'Save the NHS' campaigns need to be co-ordinated nationwide including with a high-profile national demonstration against cuts and privatisation within the health service.
Copies of the campaigning leaflet are available from Campaigns Department, Socialist Party, PO Box 24697, London E11 1YD.
RURAL POVERTY is endemic in Britain. The decline of agriculture, the increasing malign power of the supermarkets and closures of services linked to deregulation and privatisation exacerbate the problem. Capitalism is the root cause.
As well as unemployment, low wages and a crippling shortage of affordable housing, public transport is in a woeful state. Privatisation has led to closures of many more rail links; bus privatisation has had similar effects.
Some towns and villages only get one bus a week to the 'big' town. If you live in a village and cannot afford a car, life is difficult. Local services such as general stores, post offices and pubs are disappearing from the countryside faster than it took 'law and order' toffs to break the hunting ban.
Meanwhile the running down of Post Offices and the mass closure of rural, semi-rural and suburban post offices has led the service's reliability and frequency to decline.
'Second homers' (who often pay reduced council tax on a second - or third or fourth - home) have invaded rural areas and created vastly increased house prices and ghost towns/villages.
The lack of council housebuilding (in south-west England alone 15,742 are sold off per year and not replaced) and the decline of service, industry and agriculture sectors means many people cannot live and work where they are born. The rural south west has the highest number of homeless families outside the south east - the average house price is eight times the average household income!
Other people, such as the shipyard workers of Appledore, North Devon, cannot live in the town they work in. The place suffocates under a mass of pottery and craft shops for posh weekenders in what was once a proud maritime industrial town.
This has led to crushing poverty in places like Cornwall, where the low price of tin has destroyed the tin-mining industry. Lost jobs are replaced by low-paid 'McJobs' either in shops, call centres or in tourism.
Tourism, so often touted by capitalists as a way of replacing well-paid unionised jobs, offers insecure seasonal work at rock-bottom wages (some barely legal, some not legal) with as little holiday entitlement, sick pay/leave etc. as the employer can get away with.
Dairy/cattle farmers predominate in the south west; many struggle to get by if they own small farms. Supermarkets find these small farms easy to squeeze and intimidate. They make unreasonable demands especially in terms of price.
Failure to comply often results in farmers being 'blacklisted' - no supermarket will deal with them again. Combined with the isolation of farmers from each other and the uselessness of the agribusiness-dominated National Farmers Union (NFU), the supermarkets have a stranglehold.
Only the nationalisation of the supermarkets could ensure food which is produced in the interests of the whole population and not to boost the supermarkets' profits. Food quality and safety is at present subordinated to the pursuit of profit, which dictates that food looks good if nothing else.
Ensuring that only good-looking food arrives on the shelves involves wasting food that isn't deemed attractive enough and the indiscriminate use of chemicals, which may be harmful to human health and the environment.
A nationalised supermarket industry would be able to provide cheap and nutritious food and a guaranteed income for farmers both in Britain and in the third world.
In many villages (in Cornwall, the north-east and Scotland especially) fishing is a vital industry, providing jobs for other services (such as boat repairing). However, the productivity of the seas is falling, because the numbers of fish are.
The Newfoundland fishery, previously one of the world's most productive, is now barren. The North Sea and North Atlantic are heading that way. The primary reason is over-fishing, which the large trawlers contribute to disproportionately.
The quotas imposed by the EU Common Fisheries Policy do not stop this, but instead drive the small boats to the wall. This has the effect of economically and socially depressing the fishing villages.
The only answer to these problems is a democratic rationally planned economy where fishing is maintained at an optimum level to maximise yield while sustaining (or increasing) fish stocks and the numbers of fishery workers.
The market's logic is to distribute resources based on what's profitable. It is not profitable to run rural bus services, post offices, schools, hospitals and shops. When the market is king, the rural working class will suffer from a poverty of services as well as jobs, housing and money.
A planned economy is the only way to ensure that people living in rural areas have access to these things which are their right.
In order to gain support for the ideas of socialism we must gain the respect and the trust of people living in rural areas. We can do this by our normal campaigning work but also by making a stand on the issues affecting them.
IRAQI AUTHORITIES in three regions have withdrawn all co-operation from British forces in response to the sickening videos showing prisoners abused in 2004. It's a further indication of the increasing anger in Iraq to the occupation.
The occupation of Iraq has been a disaster from the beginning. Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in the three years of occupation but Bush and Blair have no workable political solution as the floundering attempt to create a new coalition government shows.
Representatives from Kurdish groups and Sunni Arabs are complaining of the undue influence of militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr within the Shia alliance, UIA, whilst Moqtada al-Sadr himself is calling for the rejection of the new Iraq constitution.
Iraq's leading non-Shia parties are also mounting a last-minute bid to block the reappointment of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister, citing his previous ineffectiveness in office and his new "political debt" to al-Sadr.
And while Western multinationals profit from reconstruction contracts and carve up Iraqi's huge oil wealth between them, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, threatens to cut aid to Iraq if the various government parties do not sort out a new constitution and agree on the Prime Minister.
With reconstruction aid set to end, the Bush regime continues to spend huge amounts on the military and on the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. The US defence budget is set to top $517 billion in 2007 of which Iraq and Afghanistan will take a major part.
But not only is pressure building on Bush and Blair over the war and occupation of Iraq but pressure is also building within the occupying forces. With over 2,200 US forces and 100 British troops killed this unease has reached a level that British soldiers are now demanding a "trade association" along the lines of the Police Federation to protect their rights.
Colonel Tim Collins (famous for his speech to troops on the eve of the invasion of Iraq), said: "I think such an organisation is needed at the moment because confidence in the chain of command and general morale has collapsed across the Army." And as Jeff Duncan from Save the Scottish Regiments says: "Many within the military have reached breaking point, either leaving en masse or attempting to protect themselves via this organisation."
It is vital that the campaign to end this brutal occupation is increased by building for the national demonstration on 18 March.
The campaign must be linked to the struggle for a democratic socialist society in Iraq, allowing the country's huge oil wealth to be used for the benefit of ordinary Iraqis and not the multinational billionaire profiteers.
HUNDREDS WERE expected for the picket line outside Delphi Flint East, Michigan, on 16 February to protest the auto parts manufacturer's drive to lay off 24,000 workers and cut wages by 60%.
But the day before the rally officials from UAW Local 651 [union branch] called off the event, citing a minor snowstorm as an excuse.
Still, upwards of 75 workers formed a lively picket line, most of them supporters of Soldiers of Solidarity (SOS), the fighting opposition movement within the United Auto Workers who initiated the idea for the protest.
The cancellation of the picket and rally had more to do with politics than snow. The union leaders feared the event would increase the influence of SOS dissidents at their expense. After all, while the leadership had done little to mobilise for the rally, supporters of SOS had spent weeks spreading word on the shop floor and community.
The day before the picket the Local leadership passed out leaflets and called members' homes to tell to tell them the picket and rally were cancelled.
This sabotage is consistent with the methods of the UAW leadership in general. But how to fight this? Todd Jordan, a prominent SOS activist, said: "It's going to take solidarity, real unionism from the bottom up, worker to worker, educating other union members on the shop floor."
"Its extremely disheartening," Jordan continued. "This bureaucracy tells us to wait and see. They hold rallies, but they don't tell us anything... they tell us to vote for Democrats, but that's not what the people want to hear; they want to come out and they want to fight back."
THE RALLY was timed to precede Delphi's bid to cancel its contracts with the auto workers in bankruptcy court, allowing the company to unilaterally impose massive wage and benefit cutbacks and lay off over two-thirds of its North American workforce.
But on Friday Delphi announced it would put off such a request for six weeks to continue negotiations with the UAW in hopes of avoiding a strike. A strike would cripple both Delphi and General Motors, which relies on Delphi workers for auto parts.
SOS has been holding mass meetings across the region, demanding the UAW organise members to 'work to rule'.
This is designed to prevent Delphi from stockpiling inventory to ride out a strike.
The Soldiers of Solidarity network is among the most exciting developments in the US labour movement today. It is an important sign of things to come as attacks on autoworkers and the American working class intensify.
TONY BLAIR and his closest supporters are fervent evangelists of an acceleration of capitalist globalisation and an increasing world division of labour. He asserts that further cutting trade barriers by one-third could add $600 billion to the global economy.
Moreover, Blair claims - in a sideswipe at French and European Union protectionist measures on agriculture - that free trade would benefit 'developing' countries to the tune of $47 billion a year if 'rich' countries cut agricultural subsidies and lowered barriers to agricultural imports. Africa, he claimed hypocritically, could receive a $70 billion boost if it increased its share of global trade by 1%.
Yet, it's highly unlikely that this current ("Doha") round of world trade talks will reach the agreements Blair advocates. Indeed, there appears to be a trend developing amongst some sections of the capitalist class internationally towards greater protectionism as their economies head for choppier waters.
The Economist bemoaned in June 2005 that "wherever you look, trade tensions are on the rise."
Responding to repeated barbed comments from Gordon Brown calling for the 'old European' economies to face reality and open up to more competition, French President Jaques Chirac said in October: "France will never let Europe become a mere free trade area." His prime minister Dominique de Villepin called for "economic patriotism".
CHINESE TEXTILE imports to the EU have grown by an average 23% annually in the last five years. A European Parliamentary committee warned that Europe's textiles industry could lose a 1,000 jobs a day because of this.
There is also the possibility of deeper protectionist measures in the USA, through the Schumer-Graham Bill, proposing tariffs on Chinese imports into the US. China now exports six times as much to the USA as the USA imports from China. This imbalance widened the US trade deficit to a record $726 billion last year.
However, the economic patriotism of different capitalist classes only stretches so far. At the same time as Chirac and de Villepin were busy trying to keep protectionist barriers around French agriculture, for fear of the social upheavals that cuts in subsidies would provoke, they also presided over French companies advancing a new form of colonialism through $71.8 billion of acquisitions in other countries.
Although the capitalist classes internationally extol the virtues of global free trade, their major difficulty is there are too many vested interests at stake for them to altruistically decrease their own national share of world trade.
Throughout the world trade talk negotiations there will be serious horse trading going on. Areas like the USA and the European Union will try to give away as few cuts in agricultural protection as possible in return, they hope, for an opening up of countries like Brazil and India to imports of manufacturing goods and services from advanced capitalist countries.
British capitalism, because of the scale of de-industrialisation of the economy and its dependence on financial and service economies has more to gain at this stage from liberalisation and globalisation than protectionist measures.
SINCE THE beginning of the capitalist system, the classical economists' ideas about free trade - an unimpeded worldwide market in goods, labour and services - have never been the reality. There has always been argument about whether following free trade policies or protectionist measures benefit a national economy better.
Each national capitalist economy has always had in place some degree of protectionist measures, whether it is exchange controls, migration controls, tariffs on imported goods and services or special subsidies to certain industries the capitalist class want to see developed.
Even in the 20th century, countries have attempted to use tariffs, subsidies or special measures to protect developing or weak industries. This was especially so in the Asian tiger economies during the Cold War when their economic growth was promoted by the West for strategic reasons. Even to this day advanced capitalist countries and trading blocs use tariffs and quotas to protect and develop certain industries. A current example is the row between the USA and EU over subsidies given to the aircraft industries to assist in developing a new generation aircraft to outsell their rivals.
To one degree or another all countries pursue, as far as they can get away with it, systems of tariffs, quotas and subsidies to allow various national capitalisms or trading blocs such as EU, Nafta and Asean to gain competitive advantage over others.
In the USA, President Bush had protectionist quotas for steel imports in place before the last election to shore up the Republican vote in key states where loss of steel jobs was an election issue.
For a capitalist class the decision whether to follow a free market position or protectionism is not a principled issue but one they will adopt on the basis of what suits them. However, the general feeling amongst leading sections of the capitalist class internationally is that free(er) trade acts as a lubricant to the world economy.
THE BIG danger associated with imposing protectionist measures for any capitalist class, as well as a slow down in world economic growth, is that it brings the prospect of retaliation and closes down areas of the world market to them.
Whilst there are tensions between different sections of the capitalist classes about how far to advance globalisation and free trade, the capitalists generally prefer to avoid greater protectionism in the global economy, whilst trying to create the most favourable conditions - often through disguised protectionism - for their own indigenous industries.
An almighty economic crisis, however, could probably bring about deep-rooted protectionist measures in most major economies - as happened in the 1930s. The capitalist classes are aware that this could lead to a depressing effect on world economic growth - again as happened in the 1930s.
The capitalists are not blind to the consequences of their actions but these measures would be deemed necessary to protect national economies against their rivals
At present, there is little chance of the advanced capitalist countries going fully down a protectionist road. Yet, as the pace of job losses and industrial closures increases in the USA, Europe and other parts of the world, the demand for protectionism to safeguard jobs could find a bigger echo in the workers' movement.
Workers cannot safeguard their future through adopting the type of protectionist measures advocated from time to time by certain sections of the capitalist class.
For socialists it does not matter so much where production is situated in a global economy but it is a question of which class in society controls production.
The only way for workers to protect jobs and conditions is conducting successful, militant industrial struggle that forces the bosses to accept less in profits and make workers' jobs secure.
The only way workers can properly protect themselves against the volatility and instability of the capitalist economy is ultimately, through taking over the means of production, distribution and exchange and for the economy to be democratically owned and controlled by the working class in a socialist plan of production.
The WTO talks in Hong Kong between 13-18 December 2005 agreed to phase out farm export subsidies by 2013, but there has been no agreement on import tariffs. Likewise, rich countries will phase out export subsidies for cotton, but there is no agreement on a date for reducing domestic subsidies for US farmers.
SINCE THE beginning of the workers' movement there have been demands at times of increasing unemployment and economic crisis for protectionist measures.
The increased globalisation and liberalisation of the world economy, leading to outsourcing and moving production to the cheapest labour costs, has increased demands for a 'level playing field' or greater state assistance or intervention along with the same redundancy conditions to apply as elsewhere in Europe etc to make it more difficult for the bosses to sack workers in Britain.
The profits system is plagued by economic crisis with overproduction leading to economic downturn and increasing unemployment, lowering of wages etc.
It is a system that makes jobs and industries obsolescent without caring about the lives of working people and their communities. The capitalists are forever moving on to create new industries and markets; often relocating to cheaper resources, a cheaper workforce or both.
At different times workers have used various measures to try and protect their jobs from the smashing up of machinery - 'Luddism' - (the early 19th century social movement of English textile workers against the effects of industrialisation), through to collective bargaining, strike action and political campaigns.
Some of these methods were more successful than others depending on the economic climate and strength of workers' movement.
Socialists are not opposed to industrial change but our starting point will always be what best protects workers' jobs and conditions. In order to achieve this socialists are guided by an internationalist outlook and argue against measures that set workers in one country against workers in another.
ONE OF the most prominent examples of workers' organisations advocating protectionist measures was in the 1970s when the idea of import controls gained widespread support. Import controls were seen as a way of protecting jobs and shielding Britain from the vagaries and turbulence of the world capitalist economy.
It was part of the official strategy of the Tribunite Left, then in the leadership of the Labour Party - advanced by people like Tony Benn and most trade union leaders. However, Militant supporters, the forerunner of the Socialist Party, argued against import controls for a number of reasons.
Although the idea of introducing a system of selective quotas for imports appeared superficially attractive as a means of safeguarding jobs, in fact their introduction would have had the exact opposite effect to that claimed by its advocates. Unwittingly, it was another variation on the theme of workers paying for the privilege of maintaining their employment.
Import controls are not the same as a monopoly of foreign trade or export controls and controls of movement of capital, which can form part of a socialist plan of production. Any idea today that there could be control on a capitalist basis of the flow of financial capital - amounting to trillions every day - from City of London and elsewhere is a non-starter.
One claimed economic advantage for import controls - over devaluation of the currency for example - was that it would not drive prices up.
However, Militant argued that workers in Britain or any country would face higher prices if import controls were introduced.There would have been little doubt that British capitalists would have increased their prices in a more sheltered market. And those foreign capitalists who were allowed to import would also push prices up with an easily guaranteed market.
There was no guarantee under private ownership that capitalists would take advantage of this so-called 'breathing space' to invest more and improve the productivity and competitiveness of the British economy.
We argued that British capitalism, after world war two, saw a Labour government effectively create a regulated economy in an attempt to protect itself from foreign competition. Yet, even though British firms were flush with cash and had a guaranteed market, the British capitalists in the late 1940s were only investing half to two-thirds that of their overseas rivals.
Another issue with import controls is that more jobs could be lost than saved as tariffs and quotas are put on British exported goods in retaliation. This would have had a much bigger impact in Britain in the 1960s and 1970s when a much larger section of manufacturing depended on exports.
The only real experience in this country of import controls being introduced was when the 1964 Labour government introduced a Temporary Import Surcharge (TIS) but was forced to scrap this mild measure within two years because of the threat of retaliation from other countries.
ONE PARTICULAR example shows how Militant took up the issue in the 1970s.
The NUM miners' union argued for selective import controls because of the continuing rundown of the industry and rigged market for coal. Many other countries were either using cheaper labour or a higher level of subsidy to produce 'cheaper' coal than was produced in Britain.
The pits in the 1970s were made to look increasingly uneconomic and liable to closure by starving the industry of funding. There was a continual rigging of the NCB accounts - to portray the industry as a loss-making operation - and an increasing use of the discovery of geological problems at pits by a new more hardline management.
The NCB was charged over £100 million in interest to store the millions of tonnes of coal that was stockpiled. Additionally, British coal had the lowest level of state subsidy in Western Europe.
Socialists around Militant were sensitive to the miners' predicament and supported their fight for jobs and a 'level playing field'. But this, we argued, meant campaigning for greater subsidies and reinvestment in the industry as the more effective way to make the cost of British coal more competitive.
Import controls, Militant argued, would set miners in one country against another and would sow the illusion that there could be a 'national' solution to the looming crisis in Britain's coal industry at the expense of other miners abroad.
Militant argued that whilst it was necessary to campaign against pit closures there also needed to be a campaign for socialist plan of production for the industry and a socialist, integrated energy policy rather than limited measures which were potentially divisive such as import controls.
This included calling for workers' control and management of the coal industry; nationalisation of all private concerns in the fuel industry under workers' control and management and for the setting up of a national fuel corporation as part of a socialist national fuel policy.
Our argument for this political approach was borne out years later, ironically by Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs when she said: "The coal strike was always about far more than uneconomic pits. It was a political strike."
AFTER THE defeat of the miners' strike, along with the increasing de-industrialisation of British industry, the arguments about import controls faded.
But, the loss of over a million manufacturing jobs under the Labour government since 1997 has, as explained at the start, led to new demands being raised to protect workers' jobs.
Socialists could, in certain circumstances, critically support some of these temporary measures, whilst guarding against illusions that they could provide a long-term solution to protect jobs.
However, one of the biggest problems with all forms of limited protectionism, is it raises illusions that there can be a national economic solution for workers and capitalists alike.
This holds workers back from looking for a socialist and class solution to their problems and they lose sight of the impact protectionist measures could have on workers' jobs in other countries.
Our approach starts from the common struggle of workers worldwide. We fight for taking control of industry with democratic working-class ownership and control through a socialist planned economy to organise investment and planning to guarantee job security and economic growth.
AT THE 20th conference of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956, first secretary Nikita Khrushchev denounced the crimes of Stalin (who had died in 1953). However, as the revolutionary events of that year showed, in denouncing Stalin Khrushchev hadn't rejected Stalinism.
Following the defeat of the Nazis in world war two the Red Army occupied eastern Europe. Gradually, through a series of 'popular front' governments and by an iron grip on the army, police and judiciary, Stalinist regimes - mirror images of the Soviet Union - were installed.
Living conditions were severe. War reparations saw factories stripped of machinery and removed to the Soviet Union. A harsh labour system involving piece-work and high production targets under a dictatorial management (known as 'Stakhanovism') was rigidly enforced. Thousands of worker-militants were expelled from Communist Parties as Stalin's police apparatus purged society of any potential political opponents.
The followers of Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky (an implacable opponent of Stalinism) explained that although the occupation of eastern Europe had temporarily strengthened Stalin's regime, the dead hand of the bureaucracy would inevitably conflict with the functioning of the planned economy. This would provoke a clash between the working class and the bureaucracy. So, the demand for workers' democracy could only be realised through a 'political revolution'.
The clearest expression of the political revolution occurred in Hungary later in 1956 (although a brief strike wave in Poland had earlier that year taken on the character of a workers' uprising).
Starting with the stirrings of dissent amongst intellectuals (the 'Petofi circle') and students, splits in the ruling Communist Party opened up channels for working-class opposition to move along. By October a political revolution was in full swing. Quickly, the workers embraced Lenin's 1919 programme against bureaucratisation.
In the capital, Budapest, workers' councils ie soviets, were established with the election of officials with the right of recall. Maximums were placed on wages, the standing army was replaced by workers' militias and freedom of expression, except for capitalist counter-revolutionaries, was established. To implement this, two general strikes and two uprisings were conducted by the working class throughout Hungary.
The occupying Soviet troops became infected with this revolutionary mood and were hastily withdrawn, only for more reliable troops to return later.
Khrushchev, having earlier denounced Stalin, resorted to the same brutal methods to crush the revolution. This resulted in splits and defections from the mass Communist Parties in the West.
Khrushchev had survived and the repressive system staggered on for several more decades but the workers' revolution of 1956 showed that the writing was on the wall for Stalinism.
AN OUTLINE of how the modern popular music industry has developed provided the background to our discussion at last autumn's Socialism 2005: The music industry, do we only hear his master's voice?
The debate was wide-ranging, including the role and portrayal of women, numerous musical trends, homophobia, the need for community access to playing and producing music, the politics of salsa and much more besides. Many of us feel passionate about music and everyone has a point of view.
The modern music industry could be said to begin with sound recording at the end of the 19th century. Ever since, it has been dominated by very few companies, though not always the same ones. Today, after the recent (troubled) merger of Sony and Bertelsmann Music Group, four companies dominate: Warner Music, Vivendi/Universal, EMI and Sony/BMG.
The industry has been pushed by technological breakthroughs. The gramophone challenged sheet music's domination and internationalised the industry. Discs made of shellac - secreted by the lac insect - replaced fragile and unwieldy tinfoil cylinders.
Electric recording (1924) improved sound quality and magnetic tape (developed in Nazi Germany) meant recording could take place practically anywhere and be edited - boosting local radio and independent record labels.
Vinyl and the development of 33 and 45 rpm records in the late 1940s further enhanced sound quality and facilitated mass production. Cassette tapes were another important development, while CDs sounded the death-knell for vinyl on the mass market.
Nonetheless, the music industry consistently stifles innovation - illustrating the regressive role that capitalism plays, holding back research and development as well as cultural advances. When shellac became widely available, old cylinders were destroyed in their thousands. The earliest blues recordings and other irreplaceable music perished in an act of wanton vandalism dictated by the short-term drive for profit.
Vinyl was first used before the second world war but, because it provided much better sound reproduction, record companies sold off existing shellac stock before introducing it. A worldwide shortage of shellac during the war (it also had military applications) helped speed up the use of vinyl.
The patent on stereo recording was filed in 1933, but the slump in the music industry during the great economic depression meant that it wasn't fully developed until the late 1950s.
Unlike most of these examples, MP3 and its use in internet file-sharing were not developed by the major record companies. Whatever the long-term effects of the internet on music and the industry - a subject worthy of further comment - the big corporations have been slow off the mark to use it.
At first they clamped down on its use with court cases against Napster, Grokster, StreamCast, and over 15,000 individuals. Belatedly, 'legitimate' business is moving in, with Apple developing iPod and iTunes, and record companies making back catalogues available to punters prepared to pay to download music.
WHEN CONSIDERING alternatives to big business, people often conjure up the periodic explosion of new musical trends -. punk, hip hop or the DIY movement rave scene of a decade ago (part of the growing anti-globalisation mood). Linked to these is the role of independent record labels.
This is not new. Early blues recordings were pioneered by small outfits - compelled to tap into niche markets because of the established labels' dominance over the mainstream. In 1920s USA, this meant the working class, and rural areas.
For black artists, in particular, it was often the only possibility of getting recorded. These markets exploded after world war two with rhythm & blues, country and rock & roll. Local radio stations and studios helped disperse the industry nationwide.
The independents became test beds for new music. Once a market was established and a genre 'crossed over' into mainstream popularity, big companies moved in to cream off the profits. Sometimes they simply took over the independents or used their mass production capability and grip over distribution to exert control.
Sun Records - the proving ground for Elvis Presley, Johnny Cash, etc - is the classic example. It could not supply the market it helped create. Presley's 'transfer fee' to Columbia Records was $35,000. It's a recurring theme, continuing with punk, rave, indie and hip hop, and on to the next big thing.
Once a genre has crossed over, the industry pushes a commodified version of the original, a pale imitation. Hip hop developed in New York as black and Latino youth self-expression. It continues still in vibrant, alternative scenes.
But the hip hop peddled by the multinationals and which dominates the world market is now part of the establishment, based on the lowest-common-denominator formula, the most reactionary themes: gangs, guns and drugs, individual greed, sexism and homophobia. It is, overwhelmingly, a stereotype of black communities marketed to an overwhelmingly white teenage audience.
Another, often inadvertent, role of the independents is in undermining pay and conditions. This has gone furthest in the US: neo-liberalism, the musical. Independent labels are increasingly sub-contractors to major labels. The main musicians' union, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), has labour contracts with all the majors.
But musicians working for independent 'sub-contractors' are only covered by the deal if the major label owns 50% or more of the independent label. As a result, over three-quarters of AFM members are not covered by the agreement their union negotiated.
In the US, the rise of radio coincided with, and helped create, the market for popular music. This was aided by large population shifts. Over a million African-Americans migrated north in the 1940s to work in munitions factories and other war-related industry. They provided the bedrock for an emerging market for rhythm and blues - and some of the most innovative and influential musicians.
In the post-war economic boom, the spending power of the mass of the population increased. In 1952, record sales overtook sheet music revenue for the first time. The rise of TV starved national radio of advertising revenue, the influence of local radio rose and this, in turn, fed local record labels.
In 1996, a fundamental change took place. The Telecommunications Act removed restrictions on how many radio stations a company could own. Clear Channel, which owned 40 US stations in 1996, now has 1,240 - a quarter of all listeners and radio-generated revenue.
This deregulation led to thousands of lay-offs, the decimation of community programming, and limited musical choice. The use of digital pre-programming has been used to cut staff and break labour contracts.
Ultimately, we aren't forced to hear only his master's voice. There are many vibrant, alternative music scenes involving many people making and enjoying music. Nonetheless, overall, capitalist rules apply and big business rules. The four majors control around 90% of music industry revenue.
Now more than ever, the profit-driven capitalist system holds back progress and stifles initiative. Despite this, people still create wonderful works of art, music and culture. For a full flowering of musical talent, however, we must get the big business monkey off our backs.
Good Night and Good Luck arrives in Britain on the back of a wave of critical acclaim.
Set in the USA of the 1950s, it tells the story of an actual conflict between television reporter and presenter Edward R. Murrow and Joseph McCarthy, the arch-witch hunter who chaired the House of Un-American activities committee.
It is also a film about journalistic standards and ethics, with an implied commentary on journalism in the era of 'The War on Terror'.
Shot as a docudrama in black and white, and containing a large amount of contemporary news footage, the film conjures up an authentic picture of the television newsroom of the 1950s.
Brilliantly acted by David Strathairn as Murrow, and a fine supporting cast, including director and co-writer George Clooney playing the role of Murrow's producer, Fred Friendly, Good Night and Good Luck is a riveting and entertaining film.
From the early 1950s Senator McCarthy had been in the forefront in forcing out of public life, film and media and trade union activity anyone who had left-wing sympathies, or even tenuous connections with radicals and communists.
In 1953, McCarthy overreached himself, turned his attention to exposing 'red espionage' in the US armed forces. On March 9 1954, the CBS programme See it Now, fronted by Murrow, attacked McCarthy and his methods.
This in turn led to two further programmes in which both parties presented their case. It's widely held that McCarthy's political demise, culminating in a Senate condemnation of McCarthy's methods at the end of 1954, stemmed from his exposure by Murrow on See it Now.
The film not only traces the history of these programmes, but also the conflict within CBS itself. On the one hand, the film shows how the company had attracted journalists such as Don Hollenbeck, who had come from an explicitly left-wing background, and who was subject to on-going attack from conservative politicians and newspapers.
On the other hand, the founder of CBS, Bill Paley, grows increasingly wary of See it Now as sponsors start to distance themselves from the programme. Eventually this leads to See it Now being moved from its prime-time slot. Later it was to be ditched altogether by CBS in favour of The $64,000 quiz.
The film also begins and ends with a speech given by Murrow in 1958 to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in which he condemned television as having become "fat, comfortable and complacent".
He also criticised the way in which television had become used to "detract, delude, amuse and insulate us". The 'Murrow Doctrine' has become a benchmark referred to by many who, seeing the rise of Fox News and 'embedded journalists', regret the passing of an apparent golden age of journalism.
For all its virtues, some of the underlying messages of the film are rather one-sided. Investigative journalism was not the determining factor in leading to McCarthy's downfall.
In reality, McCarthy was becoming far too much of a loose cannon for important sections of the American ruling class - the army chiefs in particular did not want him interfering on their own patch.
Moreover, journalism doesn't exist outside of an overall political and economic context. It would be splendid if honesty and integrity were the watchwords for all journalists.
However, they are employed by corporations that are dedicated to making profits and uphold a system, capitalism, that protects those profits.
As companies such as Murdoch's News Corporation (which includes the Fox companies) now extend their influence into cable television across the US, it isn't sufficient to believe in a 'return to Murrow'. Even if you could bring him back, would any of today's major news channels be prepared to give him a job?
Despite these caveats, this is an intelligent, thought-provoking film that gives an insight into the era of McCarthyism and the development of news television in the 1950s.
The socialist strives to express the growing anger of workers, reporting on strikes and demonstrations from the workers' point of view. We appeal to both individuals and groups - from trade union branches to community activists - to place an advert for May Day Greetings in the socialist. Show solidarity with the struggles of workers internationally and help build the resources of our socialist newspaper.
Rates include 30p per word, £15 for 1/32 page, and £25 for 1/16. Contact 020 8988 8796 or [email protected] for more details. Deadline Friday 7 April.
The socialist 2006 campaign to increase sales of and subscriptions to the Socialist Party's paper was launched at this year's national conference. The campaign has started well as the socialist has now reached a record number of subscriptions.
This is thanks to over twenty new subscriptions and direct debits being received within days of the February conference. If this many new subscriptions were taken out every week, the paper would reach the new subscriptions target agreed at conference by the end of this year.
To help achieve this target it is important that all Socialist Party members without a subscription are asked to subscribe. Branch papers organisers should co-ordinate this with the assistance of other active branch members.
Do not forget to ask all new members and potential members to subscribe either. Of course, if you do not have a current subscription to the socialist we ask you to subscribe too!
The socialist is essential reading for all Socialist Party members and supporters so they can keep up to date with our campaigning work as well as our political ideas and socialist analysis.
Taking out a subscription not only means you receive the paper every week, but it also helps build the financial base of the socialist which is vital in developing both the Socialist Party and its paper.
Want to read the socialist every week? To subscribe, click here. Ring 020 8988 8796 to pay by credit card or ask for a Direct Debit form.
UNIVERSITY LECTURERS have voted by a big majority, on a high turnout for the sector, to go on strike over pay. An even bigger majority backed action short of a strike.
The anger reflected in this ballot result shows that we have had enough of the years of empty promises from the employers to give us the pay we deserve. Although lecturers' productivity has more then trebled over the past fifteen years, as student numbers have shot up with no increase in staffing, pay 'rises' have been near or below inflation for decades.
The management has been relying on the goodwill of lecturers to get away with this exploitation, but we are now sending a clear signal that the goodwill has run out. Enough is enough!
It is important that the union builds support for the strike action, not least because it will involve members from both the pre and post-92 universities, members of AUT and NATFHE, who will shortly be united into a single union - this is a clear test for the new united body.
Past action has concentrated on action short of a strike, (eg marking boycotts) but this has often proved to have had limited impact, because management could pick members off one by one.
This time the emphasis should be on building support for strike action which should be escalated if necessary if the vice-chancellors, the university bosses, remain intransigent. Another priority, which will be crucial in the campaign, is to win the support of students, whose future depends on having a high-quality education, itself reliant on decently paid and motivated staff.
The ballot details are: 64% in favour of strike action on a 51% turnout. NATFHE members also voted by larger margins on a similar turnout to take action.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
What the Socialist Party stands for
The Socialist Party fights for socialism – a democratic society run for the needs of all and not the profits of a few. We also oppose every cut, fighting in our day-to-day campaigning for every possible improvement for working class people.
The organised working class has the potential power to stop the cuts and transform society.
As capitalism dominates the globe, the struggle for genuine socialism must be international.
The Socialist Party is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI), a socialist international that organises in many countries.
To hear an audio version of this document click here.
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/5031