Quick thread on today’s #TubeStrike, from an @RMTLondon rep (I’m not directly involved in the dispute, as I work on stations, but I’m in full support of my train operator comrades)…
The basic issues in the dispute are simple. When Night Tube was first proposed, LU said existing staff would work the night shifts. We (drivers, station staff, and others) said… no thanks. We struck, and won an agreement…
…which said LU would recruit a dedicated workforce on stations and trains to work Night Tube. That agreement was explicit that drivers would not have to work nights or additional weekends. LU is now ripping that agreement up, by abolishing the Night Tube driver grade.
No-one is being sacked, but jobs are being cut (as Night Tube drivers move into full-time roles, their positions will be deleted rather than being filled). One corollary of this is that part-time, including Night Tube, station staff who want to become drivers but need to…
…retain their part-time/Night Tube hours, for example because they have childcare or other caring responsibilities, are now basically precluded from getting drivers’ jobs. Grade consolidation closes off a line of career progression for part-time staff.
Think about your own work… if your boss suddenly said, “you now have to work night shifts and extra weekends”, would you just meekly accept that, or might you object?
And if you’re thinking, “I’d like to object but there’s nothing I could do about it; I’d have to live with it, so why shouldn’t the Tube drivers?”, then maybe what’s missing in your workplace is collective organisation that could challenge the imposition. You can build that too.
LU’s proposal will increase fatigue and damage work/life balance. It’s not in passengers’ interests to have Tube trains driven by fatigued drivers. If you want a safe, reliable Night Tube, you should support the #TubeStrike.
As an aside, the “automated/driverless trains” thing Tories and other anti-union folks call for every time drivers strike is not going to happen. It would take a huge engineering overhaul that would be hugely expensive and lead to a lot more disruption. Even LU bosses know this…
…the call is solely an ideological artefact wielded by people who want to break the power of organised labour. So unless you’re a Tory GLA member, who are mechanically programmed to repeat the call on a regular schedule, best to drop it.
There’s also an important wider context. “Grade consolidation” is really the first major salvo in what’s likely to be a barrage of attacks on our terms and conditions, impelled by LU bosses and the mayor agreeing to pass on cuts demanded by the Tories in exchange for funding.
They’re also preparing to cut our pension arrangements, change our attendance procedure and other policies, possibly cut jobs on stations and elsewhere, and more. This is bad for us as workers; none of it will benefit passengers, either.
When Tube workers strike, passengers are inconvenienced. That’s the reality of the work we do. Every strike impacts someone. The “holding London to ransom” narrative implies we should just “take one for the team”, and put up with whatever our bosses throw at us…
…in order to avoid inconvenience and disruption. If that’s your view, which workers do you believe *should* be allowed to strike? Only those whose actions don’t impact anyone? Do you really want a society in which employers have unchallenged power?
If you’re affected by the disruption today, don’t blame the strikers (and definitely don’t take it out on station staff and cleaners!), direct your anger towards LU bosses for provoking the dispute by ripping up agreements.
And if you want a safe, reliable, well-funded, properly staffed public transport system in London, you should support unions representing transport workers in our efforts to achieve exactly that. Join us at Parliament at 11 next Wednesday to demand it! rmt.org.uk/news/events/sa…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When I first got involved in climate politics (circa 2005), I feel the view that organised labour was a key environmental actor was, if not quite marginal, then certainly not mainstream. That has definitely shifted in a positive way since. #ClimateAction#COP26
Similarly, in the labour movement, around a decade ago I remember hearing a well-respected trade unionist give a speech in which he denounced climate politics as a middle-class concern, and the climate movement as anti-worker. Much rarer to hear that sort of rhetoric now.
From a distance it seems it’s been commonsensical for most activists to link the cleansing workers’ strike into #COP26 mobilisations in Glasgow. I think that’s a good sign that some form of class politics, however rudimentary, is now much more mainstream in the climate movement.
Even on its own terms, just on a very pragmatic level, what is the strategy here? How does Sunrise DC’s action advance the struggle for Palestinian self-determination a single inch? How does it obstruct Israel’s machinery of oppression?
Beyond that, this statement is a pretty good example of how the “absolute anti-Zionism” that dominates much left thinking about Israel/Palestine has an inevitably antisemitic logic.
Where Marlon describes BDS being “enacted against diaspora Jews”, pro-BDS folks might reply, “well, if you don’t want to be targeted, don’t have any links with Israel, no-one’s forcing you to.” If only things were that simple! [Thread]
If only things were so simple that Jews could just detach Israel, the historical experiences that impelled Zionism, and the idea of Jewish nationhood, from their consciousness and identity. If you want such a “detachment” to take place, that all has to be worked through.
Which is to say nothing of the fact that almost every mainstream institution in Jewish communal life has some link, however notional/diffuse, with something Israeli. A consistent application of a “boycott Israel” approach would mean Jews disengaging from mainstream Jewish life.
As it’s #CableStreet85 tomorrow, and as the CPB/Morning Star has been prominent in commemorations today, worth remembering that, whilst the CP rank and file in the East End played an admirable role, the leadership was only dragged into supporting the counter-mobilisation when…
…local activists told leaders the CP would be “finished” in the East End unless they abandoned plans for their own, party-controlled anti-fascist rally in Trafalgar Square on the same day and backed the local action. (The stamped text reads: “ALTERATION: RALLY TO ADLGATE, 2PM”)
Pretty much every political tendency, even on its own terms, has mistakes in its past. But there should be some reckoning with those mistakes; attempting to boost contemporary credibility on the basis of a misleading revision of the historical record is dishonest and sectarian.
All true, but worth adding: sometimes use of language about fighting, even overthrowing, “the system” (or whatever) isn’t a cynical PR stunt intended to dupe people into supporting a cause that’s really about propping up the status quo… (1/4)
…there are currents which really do want to “fight the system”, but in the name of a worse alternative. So it’s not (just) the left “falling for” deceptive rhetoric, it’s forgetting that our positive alternative - not mere -ve opposition to status quo - has to come first. (2/4)
In the Communist Manifesto, there’s a critique of currents which oppose capitalism in the name of a reactionary alternative. Many of the left’s political failures in past decades are about forgetting that reactionary anti-imperialism and reactionary anti-capitalism… (3/4)
What the debates about when and how Labour should announce policy, and even what the policy should be, invariably leave out is the equally (arguably, more) fundamental question of how the policy is formulated.
Corbyn’s leadership largely left intact the Blairite model of policy production: that it was something cooked up by specialists (SPADs, policy wonks, whoever) in LOTO or Shadow Ministers’ offices, and “announced” to the party and the public simultaneously.
There’d even be policy announcements out of the blue *at conference*, which the left had fought for years to empower. Failing to make a politically sovereign conference the place where policy was debated and agreed (and then acted on!) was a huge missed opportunity.