Woodley, Unite and Labour: more than a bit of verbal?
Posted on Tuesday 1 June, 2010
Filed Under Trade Unions
MANY trade union general secretaries can deliver a punchy left-ish sounding speech when the occasion demands, without any particular implications for their political practice.
Tony Woodley is a case in point. I am not suggesting he is in any way a poseur; he’s a genuine working class bloke, labour movement born and bred, who made his way up from the shop floor. I don’t doubt that he privately sees himself as a socialist by conviction.
But although he has sometimes been touted as a paid-up member of the Awkward Squad, I have never really bracketed him up there with the true rock stars of that particular breed, such as Crow, Serwotka or Dear
Maybe they should have established a separate lesser category for Woodley, Rix and Gilchrist, giving it a moniker like the Slightly Untoward Team or something.
Perhaps because he has never done time as a commie or a Trot, Woodley’s political instincts have typically seen him unwilling to criticise New Labour openly, even when they damn well deserve it. But now New Labour are out of office, it looks as if the gloves are off.
Hence the content of his address to the Unite policy conference in Manchester yesterday. Incidentally, the only place you can read a full account is on page three of the Financial Times this morning. There is no coverage whatsoever in the Guardian or the Daily Telegraph.
What’s up, guys? Britain’s largest and most politically influential trade union not newsworthy enough for you, or something? Even the normally dependable Morning Star only accords the speech five scant paragraphs.
Admittedly I haven’t seen the full text, but the impression the FT report gives is that Woodley had much to say about the relationship between unions and the Labour Party, and is even talking in terms of ‘taking the party back’ for working people, the poor and the unemployed.
He slammed the last government for involving Britain in the Iraq war, which he branded ‘illegal and unjust’, and demanded the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.
Unite members should only back those Labour leadership candidates unequivocally committed to scrapping the Tory anti-union legislation of the 1980s, he implored. Yes, you read that right. That presumably rules out everybody who will actually make it onto the ballot paper.
I won’t be alone on the left in saying ‘amen’ to all of the above. It is, of course, sadly symptomatic that Woodley is only coming out with this now. Surely the best time to try to influence Labour policy is when Labour is in office and not afterwards, comrade?
Maybe he has delivered perorations with a similar content many times before, especially when safely on home turf. But if so, I will confess to not having heard about it.
What I am left wondering is just how far these words reflect the mood at the base of the labour movement. If Woodley is just giving it a bit of verbal, then that is pretty much that.
But if this is an early indicator that some trade unionist leaders are thinking in terms of using the political influence that the Labour-union link still gives them, at least potentially, then the significance of the speech could yet prove considerable.
<<Go back
Comments
59 Responses to “Woodley, Unite and Labour: more than a bit of verbal?”
Leave a Reply
Dave, your words: ” I have never really bracketed him up there with the true rock stars of that particular breed, such as Crow, Serwotka or Dear”, tell us everything we need to know. The “rock stars” (most obviusly Crow) pose and posture… then deliver nothing.
Woodley, faced with an almost impossible situation in many of the industries he covers, has done his best and delivered. Not helped by a useless, incompetent partner in Simpson and the pathetic remanants of “Amicus” and its dead members, that the ex-T&G is now busy rescuing.
“Woodley’s political instincts have typically seen him unwilling to criticise New Labour openly, even when they damn well deserve it. But now New Labour are out of office, it looks as if the gloves are off.”
WOW! Thank God for that, eh Dave! Best to wait ’til its safe.
“Ruthless Criticism” indeed as Dr Marx once said.
I know, Richard. I know.
Still, one step of the real movement, and all that jazz.
The “rock stars” (most obviusly Crow) pose and posture… then deliver nothing.
I’d say Crow delivers plenty industrially.
Politically? Agree totally.
And didn’t Rix go down the SLP route for a while?
“I’d say Crow delivers plenty industrially.”
err… like what, exactly, boiler?
Yes if we ignore the fact that Crow has maintained and advanced a strong union able to defend it’s members against attacks from the bourgeois class then you could indeed say Crow has achieved nothing.
But then we shouldn’t burden him entirely with the failure of the socialist revolution to get off the ground. Or blame him for the failure of the now discredited New Labour project.
Wonder if the new ‘progressive’ leader of New Labour will hand out an olive branch?
“Yes if we ignore the fact that Crow has maintained and advanced a strong union able to defend it’s members against attacks from the bourgeois class then you could indeed say Crow has achieved nothing.”
And Woodley hasn’t?
Denham,
I have no problem with Woodley. I will leave public criticism of Trade union leaders to you.
Tony Woodley, as Jim says, is making the best of a bad fist of cards that’s the situation that UNITE is in.
To give just two local examples. In the past year we lost a mate of mine who was an activst when the local firm down the docks made people redundant. We lost as a shop steward (though he still comes to Branch meetings) the rep for the manual workers on the council.
This kind of eating away at our union’s base is going on and on and on.
Tony has *publicly* described himself as a Socialist: I was at an Ipswich meeting for his campaign to get elected and that was the word he used. I like him and feel a lot of loyalty to him.
As for Simpson and the creature of the night that is pushing this idea of ‘influence’ within the Labour Party – I cringe when I see them on the television.
As for Bob Crow: I am getting hearily sick of his marching band every time I do on a labour movement demo (the most recent was a couple of months ago in London). And his zepplin at Burston did not impress.
As for Bob Crow; “No2EU”
‘Nuff said, I think.
Oooh, intriguing.
Any anonymous content liberator capable of slinging the FT text up? I’ve used my weekly free article thingy already.
“I’d say Crow delivers plenty industrially.”
err… like what, exactly, boiler?
Like the decent wages and conditions for most RMT members working in the rail industry, in particular on London Underground where they have the highest membership density and have gained members from ASLEF due to their militant stance.
Of course, that is largely down to them and their willingness to take action, but reductio ad absurdam that means a Gen Sec has no influence whatsoever industrially.
When the legal situation is so unfavourable that trade union leadersstart to lose their relevance as negotiators, it’s not surprising to see them kick back a bit. And a lot of people are doing the “New Labour was nothing to do with us guv” shtick. Still, radical words are good, even better if they’re backed up by actions.Pity you can’t read them if you’re not an FT subscriber.
“Like the decent wages and conditions for most RMT members working in the rail industry, in particular on London Underground where they have the highest membership density and have gained members from ASLEF due to their militant stance.
Of course, that is largely down to them and their willingness to take action, but reductio ad absurdam that means a Gen Sec has no influence whatsoever industrially.”
You’ve answered your own question, Boiler: it is not difficult to maintain wages ad conditions in a well-organised industry. The test comes in pooirly-organised sectors and amongst people like migrant workers. In these fields neither Unite nor the RMT have done well. But to simply posture (as some RMT people do) and try to make out that the RMT record is significantly better than Unite’s in these sectors is, simply bollocks. In fact, on the London buses, the (remnanats of the) RMT is a real problem as far as efective organisation is concerned.
So let’s have less “rock star” stuff, less inter-union chauvinism, and more discussion about building an effective cross-union movement to oppose the cuts and defend workers’ rights.
Anyone at the conference? Anybody know how the speech went down?
Woodley and Crow have done their best. Some of you lot forget that management are always looking over the shoulder of the TU Reps to see if the troops are behind them. That is what matters. I am reliably informed by a relative who is a rail worker that Crow is popular. The relative is not a political leftie but likes Crow. Crow did an article in I think it was the Indepedant a while back where he spoke about the jungle out there. How right he was. The man fights for every penny he can get for his members.
What game is Denham playing here? Rubbishing the RMT, a union that has not only brought a wider number of transport workers into a union but has also shown great solidarity and material support to other workers struggles.
Pass me the rat poison.
JOHNNO: learn something about elementary trade unionism, please. I and others have already had to teach (and correct) you about elementary Marxism – I honestly can’t be arsed to do the same all over again about trade unionism.
Jim Denham. History always leaves mouthpieces like you in the dustbin. I doubt you have any clue about basic trade unionism.
Vermin,
My dad was a union convenor, I was bottle fed the union movement.
As for teaching me elementary Marxism, well elementary is about your level but please enough with the comedy already!
“I doubt you have any clue about basic trade unionism”;
No: apart from leading about a dozen strikes at Longbridge in the 1970′s and then being sacked for leading direct action in the plant.
Jim Denham. Well well so we have something in common except Marxism. So you must have known Red Robbo. I recall management on a hill taking photos of him addressing a mass meeting. You do not actually lead strikes. It is the workers that vote for it. So they lead and you do what you are told. I was blacklisted during 1970. My father was blacklisted during 1939 as well as having the pleasure of attending the Slave Camps 1936 in Norfolk Sussex. I believe it was the Duke of Norfolks Land. So much to be grateful for.
Jimmy: you are becoming incoherent. DEo you know about “downers”?I can stand by my record, and I can call witnesses.
Are you, my friend, questioning the fact that I was a strike leader at Longbridge in the 1970′s?
If so, I am quite happy to have an investigation.
Are you?
Come on, Jimmy: either you, or I are a liar here. Let’s finish this by establishing the TRUTH.
Either I was a strike leader at Longbridge in the 1970′s…or I’m a LIAR…
which is it?
I’m quite happy to have an investigation.
Are you?
No reply from Jimmy: come on, pal: let’s establish who is, or isn’t a LIAR, here.
Still no reply from Jimmy.
…and no reply
Well: we seem to have shut Jimmy up, once and for all.
Jim Denham. Are you feeling OK? I did not question your personnal credentials.
Then what *are* you questioning, Jimmy?
PS I feel fine.
Jimmy: you wrote: “Jim Denham. History always leaves mouthpieces like you in the dustbin. I doubt you have any clue about basic trade unionism”
I think you might want to withdraw that now, pal.
Jim Denham. You cleared any doubt by explaining your credentials at Longbridge. I have no evidence to contradict your comment and would not waste my time doing so. However workers lead strikes. You may have been helpful in arguing for a strike. I am not your pal. And have you managed to obtain a sense of humour during your working lifetime!
Yeah, Jimmy: my sense of humour is laughing at idiots like you…pal.
Jim Denham. Are you sure you are OK! I could call you an Ambulance!
No: just apologise to me. A bit of grovelling wouldn’t come amiss, either… pal.
Jim Denham. So what strikes did you actually lead! Did the workers follow! Were you the great leader! Did you save the plant!
I led about a dozen “downers” between 1975 and 1981: I stood on the picket line for Derek Robinson when he was sacked and went back into the Tool Shop to argue with toolmakers as to why they should come out for him; I was finally sacked (along with six other workmates) as the “ringleader of a disorderly mob” in 1981.
I have to say I find it rather distateful having to justify myself to an arsehole like you. But if you want independent corroboration, ask Alan Thornett: not someone who’s in political sympathy with me, but he is at least honest.
Jim Denham. You seem to want to communicate with arseholes however distasteful. I am sure you enjoyed being the ringleader. Something to tell the grandweans.
Jimmy: where does this get you? Stop floundering. Just admit that you’re out of your depth and…well..simply ignorant and wrong.
…pal
“Ay, lad.”
Old Ebenezer closed his eyes in a mood of happy reminiscence.
“I remember them days an’ all. We sang the Red Flag and we occupied the tool shop and the tram depot and the boot blacking factory and the stone axe quarry and the coracle slipway.”
That’s why there’s no bloody jobs no more, yer daft old c-nt!” snarled his nephew.
Fred Kite, nice little fascist fairytale.
But there are jobs Fred (though unemployment in the Euro Zone currently stands at 10.1%, which I am sure you will put down to loony trade unionists) , just that without a highly unionised workforce people suffer. As all the data from nations with high union density, such as Sweden, makes clear.
JimDenham: I know ‘Jimmy Glasge’ is a pain in the arse, but try not to take it personally. Remember the words of the Red Flag, ‘Though cowards sneer and traitors jeer…’. I think we’ve all realised what side Jimmy Glasgae is on, and it ain’t ours.
SueR. Thats quite funny. What side are you on SueR! I wonder how many hypocritical socialist landlords and socialist MPs that send their children to private schools have stood up and sung the Red Flag over the decades. John Redwood would be good at it. It is a bit of a duff song. I prefer the Star of Rabbi Burns anyday. Jim Denham did seem to get upset but that was not my intention. I am sure Jim the leader is a decent bloke.
Jim Denham. I do recall Thornett from the past. Apparantly he denounced Trotskyism and got into bed with others. Maybe he made the wrong move. Just reading an article in the World Socialist Web Site about him. Beats me how a revolutionary socialist can denounce Trotsky. Love or hate Trotsky he was the ultimate revolutionary. The man was a genius, a civilian that led the Red Army to victory only to end up with an ice pick in the head courtesy of Uncle Joe. It looks like Galloway does not require an advisor any longer.
Jimmy: whatever his faults (like apologising for Galloway), I’m not aware that Thornett has ever renounced Trotsky, and I’d be most surprised if he ever did.
Jim Denham. http://www.wsws.org claim he has. Certainly Galloway is not a Trot and the Islamists in Respect would reject Trotskyism. So maybe Thornett is out on a limb.
Thank you for that link, Jimmy. It has long been clear that Thornett is a demoralised and broken man, and I take no pleasure in pointing that out. The article you link to, however, doesn’t prove that he’s discarded his own version of “Trotskyism”…any more than those other Islamophiles, the SWP, would admit to such a thing.
It’s all very sad.
I knew Denham and Jimmy would eventually find common ground.
JOHNNO. Lev Davidivich would probably have opted for the ice pick if he had known socialists would merge with religious freaks. I doubt me and Jim Denholm would find a lot of common ground. But I am always open to persuasion. You must be shattered knowing Respect and Gorgeous were rejected by an enlightend electorate. I am not a Gypsy but I did predict this would happen. Remember JOHNNO the masses will not be conned all of the time.