Would it enable general secretaries bureaucratically to exclude internal opponents who belong to Marxist groups, for instance?

Yes.

Evidence: Germany. The IG Metall, for example, which still wants to merge with whatever the AEEU is called these days, has a list of proscribed organisations in the way that the LP used to (or still does?).

Regardless of which groups are on the list, those expelled from the IG Metall are almost exclusively left-wing workplace activists; most of these are members of the Maoist MLPD (Germany's largest 'revolutionary' organisation) - though a few other non-aligned activists, who, for example stood against IG Metall lists in workers' council elections (for the perfectly good reason that the IG Metall in these workplaces are crap and sell-outs i.e. in bed with the management) have also been affected in recent years (e.g. at Opel).

Under German law, only union members have the right to the pay and conditions agreed by the union. So if you get expelled, it's likely one effect will be pay cuts and less holiday entitlement etc., especially as the bosses know that you won't have a union to support you. Nasty stuff.

I agree with the point in principle that unions should have the right to decide their own rule books - but this particular idea on its own is dangerous and could easily lead to the situation Dave suggests, and therefore, in hindsight, I don't think it should be supported.

Wikipedia (the German version, as you might expect) has more on this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss

Apex, which was the predecessor of my current GMB branch, barred all communists from holding office in the union until 1972 (I think).

You can imagine what the results were in terms of the union's politics.

In West Germany they of course went one better - they just barred all 'communists' (not just CP members or members of other left groups) from a significant proportion of jobs, including the entire public service including all state-owned industries (post, telecom, rail, bus, airlines, education, health, public service media....).

Incidentally - the same laws are used today. One teacher in Bavaria got blacklisted for being involved in an antiracist group, though he won an appeal a few months ago - but in another part of Germany.

Thius campaign to bar people from unions on the grounds of their politics is OK: unions *should* have the right to exclude members. The problem is that the campiagn has its roots in the 'Socialist Action' - initiated campaign to have people (specifically, fascists), booted out of their jobs (by the bosses) on the grounds of their political views - a campaign that inevitably rebounds upon communists and other left-wingers.
We should, therefore be very wary of this sort of stuff.

Jim, as ever, Leftyblogland's Voice Of Reason. Spot on.

I agree with every word of your post.

I think the real left should mobilize against what will be a threat to their politics rights. This is Marxism 101, what is used by the bourgeoise state against the right, can be used against the left.

errr no.

This is legislation that has been asked for by the labour movement, to empower labour movement organisations to combat the far right.

There is no question, and no tradition within the Labour movement of political exclusions of left actists from membership, and if this was attempted there would be a political campaign against it throughout the movement.

Jeff - I was a member of Apex, the proscribed organisations question was in place right until the merger with the GMB. But it was regularly challenged at conference, to quite lively debate - it did IIRC not bar people from holding office, however it required that members of any organisation on the proscribed list had to state their party membership if they stood for any position.

In fact the policies of Apex were no further to the right, nr was it any less militant than any othr white collar union. It was probably still to the left of TSSA for example.

Trade Unions should be treated under the law as fully independent and autonomous organisations.

That means that they should have the right, under their own democratically agreed rules, to refuse membership to and/or expel fascists, discipline scabs, and engage in secondary industrial action.

Legislation that takes us towards any of these positions should be critically supported. The criticism being that the new legislation, which I have not yet read although I did see the Govt consultation document earlier this year, is unlikely to go far enough in recognising trade union independence.

Andy Newman - this is from Union Ancestors. Is it wrong? I'll email them and get them to amend it if so.

"During the post-war period, CAWU became a bastion of Labour's moderate or right wing, adopting the so-called "Rule 13", which debarred Communists from representing the union in any capacity - a bar which remained in place until 1974."

[yes, I misremembered the year]

I agree with Sean here that the issue is trade union autonomy and therefore this is a step in the right direction. Trade unions should in fact be allowed to make these decisions as autonomous organisations - a great deal of this was taken away with the anti TU laws.

I think TUs should have the ability and should exercise it to expel fascists and of course this can be used against leftists - but I do think that trade unionists can tell the difference between fascists who spew hatred at every opportunity while doing very little work on the ground and socialists who, although they may disagree with some of their views, are undoubtedly some of the best builders of the TUs around.

Jeff

It needs some more research.

When I was in Apex in the 1980s there was still political proscription, and sometime around 1986 I was at Apex conference when rules revision came up, and there was a debate to try and remove proscription, which was defeated after a disgraceful speech from Grantham claiming the proscription list was to keep out the far right.

BUt in that debate at least one Spex official said from the rostrum that he was a CPGB member.

It is possible that there was an earlier more stringent proscription that was changed in 1974.

In which case we would both be right!

Jeff

"BUt in that debate at least one Spex official said from the rostrum that he was a CPGB member."

I assume that was before they merged and became X-Ray-Spex - the militant, but short-lived, union for the optical industry.

Jeff

"BUt in that debate at least one Spex official said from the rostrum that he was a CPGB member."

Was that before the merger when they became X-Ray-Spex - the militant, but short-lived, union fore the optical industry?

They disbanded after their first conference when gen sec Poly Styrene left to pursue a political career, IIRC.

Didn't she then go over to DENTURE, the Dentristy Trades Union and Related Professions? She certainly had something to do with BRACES, which, Poly being ahead of the times, didn't actually stand for anything, but was responsible for halting growth in her own gum area, before finally going BUDDHIST (an abbreviation for 'Buddhist Ex-Pop-Star').

TUs are voluntary organisations, and shouldn't have their membership criteria dictated by the state. The antidote to the persecution of the Left is building up a support base capable of defending it...

Yes, the normal comments policy round here is 'let is rock'.

Nevertheless, I have deleted three comments relating to two named individual members of the Labour Party.

I have never heard of either of this people and have no way of knowing whether the comments are justified or not.

But since they were, in the legal sense, defamatory - and being a journo, I know this stuff - I had no option but to strike the comments.

As I say, knockabout political debate is encouraged, swear if you must. But no defamation, please.