The Bureaucrats Will Betray You

“Absolutely they have a right to tell their story…As I said if it’s not expensive it will make fantastic sh*t paper. Only problem is it might be expensive or could leave print on my arse.”

These were comments made by the Mandate Trade Union’s Vice President Joe Quinn about the Debenhams workers. At a subsequent demonstration outside Mandate HQ former Debenhams worker and shop steward Jane Crowe said:

“We’re here today outside Mandate Trade Union because the vice president representing all its members just decided in his wisdom to slate our book which someone took the time to write about us and to have a go at our 406 days that we were on strike and picket.

“He made some vile comments about our book, using it as toilet paper, which really upset ourselves and our families and all of our supporters and many other members of Mandate Trade Union itself.

“It’s absolutely disgusting what he did. Mandate are trying to separate themselves and say he did it in a personal capacity.He may have done it in his personal time but he’s always the vice president of all the members of the trade union and we are members of the trade union so he did it in a professional capacity.

“We’re asking that an investigation is done, that the National Executive actually do a proper investigation into this and not one behind curtains, but one where we know what the outcome actually is.”

Mandate quickly disowned the comments saying: “They do not reflect the views or the values of the union, its staff or members of the National Executive Council.” But the sneering attitude on display in those comments will be little surprise to many trade union members who’ve come up against their own union leaders.

I remember back in 2009 I was walking down the quays in Dublin - I’d just been down talking to the lads on an electrician’s strike. I saw a woman sitting outside the Custom House crying. She had a placard. I stopped to ask what was going on. Why was she so upset?

The 10 women on strike were cleaners in the Department of the Environment and were facing the axe when a new contractor, Shorman Contract Cleaning Services, took over their jobs. There was a token picket on the place and little communication to the workers from their union.

Now just to remind you- the Custom House is literally in the shadow of Liberty Hall - you could have thrown a rock and landed it on the desk of the person responsible for helping the striking cleaners out.

Green Party Minister John Gormley just cycled past the pickets every day without a care in the world - workers’ rights obviously weren’t on his radar. I told one of the women to get on the phone to her union rep and kick up a fuss to demand more support. She phoned then and there.

After talking to some of the women we organised a lunchtime rally at the entrance which would effectively block it without them contravening the 1990 Industrial Relations Act (because we’d block it with supporters).

Some of the women were from the inner city and as someone from Fatima Mansions flats I talked to them about flyering their area for support. This worked great on the MTL dock workers’ strike where they mobilised the local area to support them.

When SIPTU got wind of this they called the planned lunchtime rally as an official union event. We didn’t mind, in fact it was a good thing because it brought more numbers down to support the striking women.

The workers’ mood massively improved because they felt like they were getting somewhere. I visited the picket every day just to check in on them and make sure they were doing OK – work their union rep should have been doing from the start.

It took socialists getting involved, encouraging the cleaners, informing workers of their right to good representation from the union, making placards and flyers, organising a rally and lighting a fire under the union reps to start increasing union involvement.

In the end another contractor, G4S, took the contract and guaranteed the cleaners their existing terms of employment. If it had been left up to the union heads, looking down from their offices in Liberty Hall, those women would have been left sitting there crying on a picket line.

So many good trade unionists could tell similar stories. The Debenhams strikers were very frustrated with their union, Mandate, and rarely saw union reps down on their pickets. Workers need unions, that’s undeniable, but the unions we have often put good people off.

You can’t just ask workers to join a union if you don’t also offer a path to winning fighting unions. Fighting unions could also win back workers who have experience of organising but were burnt out by the behaviour of their union on a strike or protest.

But let’s be clear: in the bigger unions the path to change has many roadblocks set up. Let’s not bullshit ourselves about what needs to be done to get our unions to fight.

Democracy in the unions has decreased over the years of partnership. Many unions have moved from an organising model to what’s called “business trade unionism” - where members are “clients” to be “serviced”.

The move to business trade unionism has been accompanied with a battle of ideas, diminishing the role of strikes and bigging up the role of negotiation. One major trait of “business trade unionism” is the principle that unions should be run just like businesses.

Partnership between the Irish government, the trade unions and big business accompanied this shift to business trade unionism. The “national recovery programmes” implemented in the 1990s were used to discipline the working class, prevent strikes and hold down wages.

The Programme for National Recovery that began in 1988-90 secured trade union support for cuts in public spending. This was followed by the so-called Programme for Economic and Social Progress 1991-93; the Programme for Competitiveness and Work 1994-97 and Partnership 2000.

The union leaders cooperated in the suffocation of working class militancy while the bosses borrowed through Anglo Irish Bank and fuelled a housing bubble. When it all came crashing down, they could use these partnership mechanisms to keep workers gagged while stealing from working class pockets.

The unions held back struggle to allow Labour to appear as an electoral alternative. Once in government Labour turned on workers and the marginalised. They used their control of the bigger unions to make sure there was little or no resistance. They held the line until working class anger exploded in the water protests.

But the water movement didn’t penetrate into the bigger unions in an organised way. There was no transmission belt from the streets into the workplaces - through organised grassroots networks of militants.

The union leaders act as an outer defence of the state, acting to limit the impact of opposition to neoliberalism and make sure opposition remains tame so as not to interfere with their partnership arrangements.

To keep members quiet the unions are organised as strict top-down hierarchies, dictatorships with tiers of employees paid in a stratified way just like in a capitalist company. Business trade unionism creates a centralised bureaucracy that is independent from and unaccountable to the union rank and file.

Most unions have a formal democratic structure but under business trade unionism this becomes tokenism. Take the example of brickies in BATU having to fight to have an AGM only to be told that the AGM had “already taken place on Zoom” and a new committee had been elected.

Most members weren’t even told about the meeting and had to scream blue murder to get a new meeting. In many unions in Ireland it’s very hard for a rank-and-file member to put forward suggestions unless they go through a whole labyrinth of other layers - their shop stewards, paid union reps and sections.

According to this model of trade unionism the main ‘battleground’ for workers moves from the shop floor to the boardroom, where the very well-paid business leaders of the union negotiate with the very well-paid bosses of the companies.

Paul Sweeney of ICTU claimed that: “for unions and employers the biggest accomplishment has been getting into the heads of each other, to understand unambiguously what the deep concerns of the other side are.”

He was boasting about the union tops learning to think like bosses. They think their high wages put them on the same level as the CEOs of the companies they talk to. They eye up wage increases for the bosses with envy and want the same for themselves.

The salary of the General Secretary of the Teachers Union of Ireland in 2020 was up to €150,000. Most of our unions are led by bureaucrats on over €100,000 a year. They’re so far away from the income of rank-and-file members.

It’s not just about pay though. Why do the bureaucrats let members down on so many occasions? The first reason is: they just aren’t workers anymore. They haven’t a clue how we feel down in the trenches.

Grassroots workers must sell our labour to a boss and it’s on our interests to fight for the maximum return for our work. Union officials are not in the same relationship with employers. They are cut off from the shop or office floor and don’t suffer the consequences of cuts to pay and conditions like workers do.

They are insulated from the impact of inflation on wages or the real impact of the rotten deals they did during the austerity years. That detachment allows them to make decisions that aren’t truly representing workers’ interests.

The higher salaries they get gives them a higher social status than the members they represent. As well as high earnings they have expense accounts, free cars and go on union paid holidays abroad. They treat member’s dues as a slush fund for their own use. This changes their attitudes.

The union leaders emphasise their “expertise” and role as negotiators and see this as the way to resolve members’ grievances. They see compromise as the centre of mature trade unionism. They become slotted into the mechanisms of the state and wed to legality.

But laws under capitalism serve the interests of the bosses and are weighted against workers. You’ll never see the cops come down to a strike to enforce an injunction from workers against the boss. They turn up to baton workers for defying the laws that function to defend bosses.

We’ve won some concessions over the years but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that the law is weighted in favour of the exploiters and not the exploited. Given the amount of time the bureaucrats spend interacting with the bosses’ side they often share the same worldview as the bosses - they believe that everybody must be “reasonable” and commit to industrial peace.

Strikes are an unwelcome disruption to their stable bargaining relations. Sure, a strike might upset the boss and then he won’t sit down over an expensive meal to discuss a compromise.

If they are to sustain bargaining relationships with the employers, officials must be able to “deliver” their members. Maintaining the trust of the employer means ensuring control of members and guaranteeing that you can maintain that control. That’s why partnership comes with less democracy in our unions- the two go hand in hand.

Many union officials serve on the board of state institutions or retire into positions in state bodies. Their post retirement job is a reward for being reasonable and playing the game.

They don’t allow any challenge to their authority and use the centralised structure of the union to control challenges from below. They exercise disproportionate decision-making authority and control, routinely overriding policy decisions taken at national conferences.

They are often tied to the Labour Party and the politics that goes with that. They look down on ordinary workers like we’re some kind of unruly “rabble” that need to be led by them. Labour is totally wed to the neoliberal system and their politics fits with the role the union bureaucracy plays.

But even if you got rid of the Labour hacks at the top of our unions the integration of the bureaucracy into the state, the close relationship between the bureaucracy and the bosses and the mercs and percs of the job would still see them play a similar role.

Now I’m for breaking the relationship between our unions and the rotten Labour Party but that has to be done with eyes wide open as to how far that would go to transform the unions into fighting organisations. It’d just be one step in a wider battle for change.

The union leaders have been integrated into the structures of the state and act as agents of the ruling class in the working class movement. They are not workers. They’re a separate caste, a bureaucracy that vacillates between bosses and workers.

They are not on “our” side even when they are forced to fight. They vacillate all the time. They hesitate. They are two faced. Why? Because they can’t just betray workers. Sure, why would any worker bother with unions then? Members would just walk.

They have to occasionally get some results otherwise workers would just leave the unions. But they don’t want any struggle to go too far either because it would empower workers and that might get workers thinking: “hey, we don’t need a bureaucracy!”

If workers get militant that might lead to questioning of how our unions run. The bureaucracy relies on maintaining the status quo to survive as a bureaucracy. Their parasitic existence requires workers believing the bureaucracy play a vital role.

It could also upset their cosy relationship with the bosses. So, they offer concessions to the bosses until it goes too far, members get angry, they call token protests to get ahead of the anger and then once they’re at the head of the movement they go back into talks.

The cycle repeats over and over until many militant workers get burned out by it. The union bureaucracy is timid and cowardly. They are afraid of the state, legality and the bosses but they’re also afraid of rank-and-file struggle which can actually deliver.

There are moments when the two-faced hesitation of the union bureaucracy makes the bosses think they can push as far as they like, leading to a threat to the very existence of the unions - in those situations the unions are forced to fight but they sometimes don’t know how to and rush back to the negotiating table.

Like most cowards they are also bullies. That’s why after wildcat actions - where the rank-and-file take control of a strike - the union leaders will try to hound militants out of the unions.

Their fear of mass struggle is greater than their fear of state control of the unions. At all decisive moments the union bureaucracy sides with the state. They can be forced to fight, they can act when they think they’ve let the state go too far - but most of the time they hesitate running left and right like headless chickens.

“We will support the officials just so long as they rightly represent the workers, but we will act independently immediately they misrepresent them.” said Will Gallagher to Scottish coal workers in 1915. You have to be tactical.

If you can generate enough grassroots anger then you can force the bureaucrats to fight. Once they call a fight it will be much bigger than just the militants can deliver. But once the fight is on you have to be on your guard because the union leaders will stab you in the back.

The Clyde workers in 1915 had their own grassroots organisation: “Being composed of Delegates from every shop, and untrammelled by obsolete rule or law, we claim to represent the true feeling of the workers. We can act immediately according to the merits of the case and the desire of the rank and file.”

There are grassroots groups like ASTI fightback - who play a key role in pulling their union to the left and demanding struggle. Socialists’ and other union militants should work together in identifying and developing a layer of rank and file, workplace-based, leaders that can organise in the workplace on an everyday basis.

This day-to-day organising plays a crucial role in creating workers’ sense of being part of something bigger — not just the union, but the working class — that is capable of fighting, winning, and ultimately running the show for ourselves. Rank and file groups should be made up of the most respected, trusted, and militant shop-floor leaders, people known as reliable sources of information and advice who are capable of moving other workers into action.

In 2015 ASTI fightback member Seamus Keane wrote: “I’m one of a group of activist teachers in the ASTI union, we call ourselves ASTI Fightback. We’ve long campaigned against the cuts in education, class sizes etc., often clashing with our own unelected officials who we think have been compromised by years of Social Partnership and feel more at home in Government buildings with their peers than in the classroom with ordinary teachers.

We normally agitate for change within our own union and in conjunction with our sister unions but feel that recent developments in education necessitate bringing our concerns to a wider audience while trying to raise funds to aid our campaign. Our members will be voting on the new Junior Cycle in a few weeks and we feel that this path the mandarins & bureaucrats in Government wish to lead us down is precisely the one that has ruined the education system in the UK, i.e. an outcomes-based curricular model promoting an instrumental, tick-box approach to the curriculum.

Their ultimate aim is the commodification of education where schools will be in competition with each other once league tables are published (the stated aim of Harold Hislop Chief Inspector Department of Education & Skills).”

Almost 30,000 teachers went on strike that year and ASTI fightback was key to pushing for action. ASTI fightback was launched in 2011 by socialists from the Socialist Party and People Before Profit.

The Irish Examiner reported on their launch: “A newly formed rebel faction within the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland (ASTI) made the call over claims the teachers’ body and other unions are not listening to those suffering serious cuts to pay, resources and working conditions.

Speaking after the first meeting of the 45-strong ASTI Fightback — which includes members of the Socialist Party and People before Profit but is not affiliated to any political group — spokesman Andrew Phelan said the officer class is not capable of protecting ordinary people’s rights.

And while he stressed the unofficial group does not want to leave ASTI itself, he emphasised that the teachers’ body and the wider union movement is in dire need of reform, led from the bottom up.”

By 2021 they had members on the leadership of the ASTI and were able to campaign for fightback - for example on the ballot over equal pay and Covid measures. Prior to the lockdown, ASTI had decided to ballot for industrial action for equal pay, following the Teachers Union of Ireland decision to go ahead with their strike day just ahead of the last election.

It makes a big difference to your union to have rank and file networks active. Activists in the TUI established “TUI grassroots” and the bureaucracy were so worried they threatened legal action.

The union leaders said: “The Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) has become aware of unauthorised usage of our registered name by ‘TUI Grassroots’. The Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) demands confirmation by return from the administrator(s), account holder(s) and users of TUI Grassroots that they have immediately stopped and desisted from using ‘TUI’ in name or association.

Failure of TUI Grassroots to immediately confirm that they will comply with this notice to stop and desist from using Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) name will result in the initiation of proceedings.”

This was blatant intimidation of union members who wanted to remain union members but campaign for greater grassroots democracy in the union. The letter only arrived after the rank and file had issued a leaflet against proposals on “New Entrant” pay.

The letter was all the more strange considering that TUI Grassroots had been in existence years. In a leaflet at their Congress in 2017 they said: “TUI Grassroots believes progressive reform can make TUI more democratic, more transparent and more effective. TUI Grassroots encourages you to get involved in your TUI Branch. A strong union needs an active membership. We also encourage you to join with us in TUI Grassroots in working to make our union leadership more democratic and accountable. We want a union that fights for members’ rights.”

TUI Grassroots had held meetings at the Annual Congress with the knowledge of the TUI Executive, Head Office and Congress Organising Committee and without any preconditions in relation to our name being imposed.

At the Congress in 2018 the President requested that placards printed and funded by TUI grassroots be distributed to delegates so that they could be held up to highlight the issue of equal pay to the Minister!

“The TUI bureaucracy may hide behind legal niceties and bureaucratic manoeuvres in seeking to curtail our activities but we should be clear what is going on: a clear attempt to shut down democratic debate in the union. Given our track record we are confused, as to how we might be confused for a leadership that fails to stand up for members” the group cheekily replied.

Teacher Eddie Conlon explains why rank-and-file organisation is vital in all our unions: “Those who oppose the trade union bureaucracy need to be organised. The leaders of our unions meet all the time. They strategize to stop radical motions and positions being adopted. They constantly work to generate a common sense in the unions that negotiations and compromise are always needed and that radical action must be avoided at all costs.”

It’s obvious if they’re organised to stop radical motions then grassroots members need to be organised to counter that. Eddie continues:

“They usually peddle the line that the outcome of negotiations are all that can be got at the present time and that no more can be gained. Members, who may think that what is being offered to them is not good enough, sometimes don’t know any better. They may want more but lack the confidence to take on the leadership or they may be worried about the consequences of industrial action.”

Organisation can transform grassroots confusion into confidence. It’s easier to stand up to an experienced bureaucrat when you’ve discussed the issue beforehand with other workers and know they have your back at the conference.

“So those who offer a different way need to be organised. They need to provide an alternative to the so-called common sense of the leadership. Often when members hear different arguments to those of the bureaucracy, they change their mind. They get a bit of confidence that others think what the bureaucracy is saying does not make sense. Building strong rank and file networks can provide the basis for taking independent action which is not under the control of the bureaucracy.”

But it can also force the bureaucracy to mobilise all the resources of the union and bring them to bear in a fight. Force them to fight when you can, fight without them when they won’t budge. For both you need to be organised in a rank-and-file group.

“We also need rank and file networks to keep more political issues on the agenda and campaign for real reform in our unions, such as ensuring all officials are elected and subject to recall. The power of our unions should be used to campaign on big issues such as housing. The water charges campaign showed what can be done when unions take political campaigning seriously.”

A few unions, working with left parties and community groups was able to deliver the biggest social movement since the tax marches of the late 1970s. Bigger unions like SIPTU abstained from that movement. An organised opposition within the union could have forced them out and increased the power of the water protests.

“Unite is going to be in the vanguard that can change what is happening to workers.” Said Sharon Graham, the new head of Unite the Union. “Their voice must be heard. We have to concentrate on defending jobs pay and conditions. We will not accept further attacks on workers’ living standards”

Her election to the position of general secretary of Unite over in Britain on 26th August 2021 was exciting for workers who’d been demanding more militancy from their unions. She sent a warning to the bosses:

“Bad bosses take note. A strong Unite is the best defence that our members can have - my focus now is to build that strength.” Strike action that could have halted car production at BMW Mini in Oxford was pulled when Unite drivers for a components firm were awarded 27% over two years.

This was a great result - and from just the threat of strike action. But Unite’s Drivers’ Manifesto, launched in late May 2021, aimed to win the backing of employers and the government for a national council to oversee collective bargaining arrangements for drivers, just 15% of whom were unionised. The integration into the state continues even under the best leaders.

Camille, chair of Unite Public Health England Colindale LE/985 branch (pc), wants to see “more lay rep involvement” after the election of Graham. “This was the main promise of Graham’s campaign—getting people in the workplace into trade union structures and revitalising branches,” she explained.

Richard Milner, a delegate to the East Midlands Unite regional committee said, “Really we want people to show solidarity through industrial action. For the JDE strike—why was there no leafleting across every supermarket explaining that certain companies were threatening to move work offshore and implement a £7,000 wage cut?

“With more activists involved that could’ve been done and it’s a form of leverage. Or the rank and file should be able to contact all other shop stewards and activists to say we’re in dispute and please support us without needing full time officials.”

The JDE (Jacob Douwe Egberts) strike was at a coffee company plant. Unite called off strike action to go into talks for two weeks. Joe Clarke, a Unite rep, said the cancellation of the strike was to offer management a sign of goodwill and a “corridor of opportunity” to end the strike.

He said the strike had “soured” a good relationship between the union and the bosses at JDE. The election of Sharon Graham signalled a more determined attitude towards the bosses and a break from the Labour Party - but the union was still convinced of the need to maintain a cosy relationship with employers.

“Graham will bring more accountability for reps by broadcasting meetings so we can hear what they’re saying, giving transparency. People are sick of backroom deals.” said one Unite member. Sharon Graham has promised to build combines within the union—something that activists think is crucial.

Reps combines are where all the reps from a sector are put in a room together from loads of companies to talk. The benefit of this is finding out that the company next door gets six more days of holiday pay than you. Reps can go back to bosses and ask why they don’t.

Graham’s promises opened a door for rank-and-file workers to start taking hold of the union. That’s a very good thing as long as workers don’t relax and wait for the delivery of change from above. That will just end up backfiring on workers.

The election of good bureaucrats doesn’t contradict the need for rank-and-file groups. It’s obviously better to have a left wing union leadership than a conservative leadership. But the role of the bureaucracy isn’t just shaped by their personal politics no matter how good it is.

They see themselves as eternally refereeing the battle between workers and bosses. Rank-and-file control over all the leaders - militant or not- is still vital. It will take a real battle just to recover the ground lost in previous years.

All three candidates in the Unite election got the backing of no more than 10% of Unite’s total membership. This was a real low - part of a continuous decline in participation from 12.2% in 2017, 15.2% in 2013 and 15.8% in 2010.

Sharon Graham lifted expectations in Unite - which gives the rank-and-file an opportunity to take more control over the union. If the rank-and-file don’t use this opportunity then the right of the bureaucracy could take back control and shut things down again. Even Graham could have a change of heart at some point.

Don’t believe me that left wing firebrands in the bureaucracy can let you down?

I’ll tell you the story of Hugh Jones and Jack Scanlon. Scanlon and TGWU leader Jack Jones were known by the British press as “The Terrible Twins” for their opposition to both Labour Party and Conservative Party attempts to restrict the power of the unions.

Labour prime minister Harold Wilson once famously told him to “get your tanks off my lawn.” Jones, who was injured in the battle of Ebro (south of Madrid) in 1938, represented a generation of young socialists who’d taken part in a life-or-death struggle with fascists in Spain.

Jack Jones later allied himself to the developing shop stewards’ movement which played a big part in his election campaign to lead the TGWU. In the 1960s the Labour government was preparing to ‘curb’ the power of the unions, they had their sights set on the militant shop stewards’ movement.

The Labour government of Harold Wilson tried to introduce new anti-union laws. They included legislation which would have seen shop stewards imprisoned for lengthy periods of time for representing their members. This was the so-called Labour Party attacking workers!

The massive outrage from workers forced the union leaders to lead opposition to these authoritarian measures. As a result, the legislation was withdrawn. It was from this that the press started to refer to Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, who had been elected as president of the engineering union (AEU), as the “terrible twins” of the labour movement.

The Telegraph said that Jones was “incorruptible” and that he “lived in a council house his whole life”. These were union leaders with a smell of struggle about them. But it was exactly that reputation that allowed the “terrible twins” to sell workers out.

Scanlon and Jones acted as go-betweens for Labour, communicating the party’s demands back and forth to the unions at Congress House. They were the prime movers within the union movement of the “Social Contract” which introduced strict wage controls and limits on strike action.

Jones had helped Labour write the “Social Contract” and he worked to win workers to it. The demoralisation that followed the experience of the mid 1970s Labour government paved the way for the victory of Margaret Thatcher. She faced off against an already depressed working class movement.

But it was the Labour Party who’d half done the job for her before she took power. Labour couldn’t have done it without the help of these firebrand bureaucrats. There was no big coordination of union militants on a national basis that could keep the movement fighting once Labour let them down.

Workers had been sold out by people they saw as the best of their leaders. A union movement without grassroots organisation can be sold out by any bureaucrat but a union with grassroots organisation can put a leash around the neck of even the most right-wing leaders.

I remember on at least a dozen occasions seeing ex-SIPTU leader Jack O’Connor talk about his days as a bin man, waving his hands in the air like Jim Larkin, just before he sold you out. It’s the bureaucrats with working class accents that are the ones you’ve got to watch out for.

That’s not to say that Labour member O’Connor was a patch on Jones - but all bureaucrats, left and right, like to pull out working class credentials all the better to dupe us. It doesn’t matter whether they do it on purpose or because they see no other way out, the result is the same.

All unions these days will tell you that the union belongs to the members. They’ll tell you all the right things. But it’s what they do that matters. When they are forced to campaign, strikes are placed as one among many “pressure points” that can be brought to bear on the boss.

Strikes are a last resort for business trade unionism. They prefer to put moral pressure on the bosses and negotiate. Yet it’s strikes that build union muscle and recruit new members. They often pull strikes, lose momentum, demoralise the strikers, just to show the boss how much they’re willing to negotiate.

The power of workers to shut down production is always and everywhere our key weapon. Yet it is ranked as one among many “pressure points”. That’s not to say that a media campaign or contacting politicians isn’t a key accessory to any decent strike.

But to rank these accessories on an equal standing with striking shows the side-lining of working class power in union strategizing. The best position to be in when negotiating is one of strength. That means leaving pickets in place until the boss offers a real concession.

You win by hitting the shareholders in their pockets, by shutting the place down and not by appealing to their sense of morality. They don’t have any - they invested to make money on the back of our hard work.

According to the business trade unionism model strikes “need not engage more than a minority of the workforce in the fight since victory is pursued through one or more of the corporate campaigns 11 points of leverage” to quote Jane McAlevey.

You win when you create a crisis for the employer and the cost of continuing his opposition to your demands is too high. Hit them in the pocket. That’s what works. A bloke called Joseph Luders wrote a book about the civil rights movement in the USA where he said:

“First, economic duress is a major proximate cause behind the decision of economic actors to make substantial concessions to movements.”

By “proximate” he means the main cause. So “economic actors” - meaning the boss and shareholders - will give ground when they know you’re hitting or about to hit their precious profits. That’s where our power lies - the ability to shut down production.

The greater the settlement you want - the greater the crisis you have to create to get the boss to settle. If he thinks the cost of you being out is less than the cost of the settlement he’s going to decide to hold out.

You can certainly embarrass him in the media and get speeches to highlight the case in the Dáil from friendly politicians - but ultimately success comes fast to those who act with power and our true power is the strike weapon.

Strikes need solidarity but that means mobilising though our class - for example when the MTL crane drivers were out on strike on Dublin’s docks in 2009 they had solidarity marches organised by the local community and left-wing supporters.

These protests were important morale boosts for the picket line - but they weren’t a substitute for maintaining that picket line. Once the law was used so scabs could pass the picket the strike began to lose morale. The union didn’t help either.

There are many ways the union leaders divert us from the demand for democratic unions; one is the use of what are called “authentic messengers”. They pick a rank-and-file worker and stick them on RTE to show that the voice of the union is “authentic”. It’s tokenism. It’s just window dressing.

They pick these workers based on who’ll go down well with the mainstream media. It’s about PR. The real organic leaders of the movement are side-lined to pursue a moral pressure corporate style campaign won through soundbites and not workplace strength.

Often these “authentic messenger” workers are just a way to protect the union bosses from accusations of “using” workers by presenting a more grassroots voice to the media. But what the union bureaucracy won’t do is hand control of the campaign over to rank-and-file workers.

“Organic leaders” should run every strike. The organic leaders are the workers on the shop floor who have the respect of other workers. These are the people that other workers look to when a crisis happens. They’re the first port of call when you’re looking for advice.

Organic leaders are important because they come with a base and recruiting, and training up organic leaders takes time. If you’re giving out flyers outside a workplace the organic leader is not necessarily the person who talks to you first.

That just indicates they’re friendly to unions. You need to talk to other workers and ask them “who do you look to for advice when there’s a problem?” Even if there’s no official union structure or shop steward you can find an organic leader in every workplace.

Rank-and-file groups like those mentioned above need to be made up of national networks of organic working class leaders - by coordinating efforts on a union by union basis - and across unions - they can bring pressure to bear on the union bureaucracy and force action in their favour.

In some situations, the shop steward in a job might be integrated into the union bureaucracy and loyal to the union leaders and the real organic leader could be someone else. There are ways to find out if someone has influence over a workplace.

You can do what’s called a “structure test” - to see if someone has influence. The ultimate test is of leadership is pulling workers out on strike. But there are simpler ways to test influence with unprepared actions - ask them to get a petition signed.

If someone comes back with everyone’s name then you know they’re respected enough by other workers. If they fail the structure test they’re not the organic leader they’re just a worker who supports your aims. Try again.

“Structure” is an academic term that hides the fact that what you’re actually testing is influence over people - the ability to move other workers into action.

It takes time to win good people and often, what union organisers call “the long uncomfortable silence” is a sign that they’re thinking deeply about what you’ve said. To quote McAlevey “every good organising conversation makes everyone at least a little uncomfortable.”

A grassroots union network still needs accountability within its own ranks too. Especially if the group might end up running people for positions in the union. Remember - it’s not just the politics of the bureaucracy that makes them what they are - it’s the role they play.

If you stick one of your fantastic organic leaders onto the leadership of your union and they take the perks of office, work negotiating with the bosses and spend their time with other bureaucrats then they’ll jump ship on you.

You have to have some ground rules in place based on our understanding of the nature of the bureaucracy and the role they play. First, you need all decisions to be made by the rank-and-file groups’ members - especially if one of them gets elected to a position.

They can’t just go make executive decisions for the group - especially if there’s a struggle going on. If you’ve no democratic mechanisms it means you’ll end up with unaccountable leaders. This is important if your grassroots group is successful - you can be killed by your own success.

We’re not in this game to just produce another layer of future bureaucrats. Secondly, it’s good to have ground rules about paid positions in the union. One of you is offered a position on the leadership, but it involves leaving the workplace behind and a big fat pay cheque- what do you do?

The grassroots group has to be set up to deal with that situation and have guidelines in place. As a socialist I’d be for banning anyone taking big fat pay cheques and as much as possible getting organic leaders, who are still connected to workplaces, into positions of influence. All positions should be subject to recall.

Third thing you’d need is a commitment that anyone elected to any position has to promise that all debates and discussions are made open to all members of the union - not just members of your group - all rank-and-file members of the whole union.

It’s essential to develop a real democratic culture in our unions and that means fighting for more democratic constitutions, establishing more internal caucuses and writing alternative newsletters written by the rank-and-file and addressed to the rank-and-file.

Demand as much education as you can from your union - even for people with a natural flair for organisation. Workers often give ground to people with “better” education like academics or students and this can be very problematic in our unions.

Workers need to be given training from the union but also from the grassroots group - there are things the union leaders won’t tell you about organising a strike. And they’d run a mile from any conversation about breaking the law - but no worker can avoid learning about all available tactics.

We need to revive a culture of activism. The unions have become hollowed out undemocratic and bureaucratic machines that act to hold back struggle. They’ve lost their sense of grassroots activism, campaigning and workplace recruitment. It’s up to grassroots groups to re-inject that activist spirit.

In 1995 in the USA 97% of AFL-CIO unions had no organising programs. In 1996 they recruited a thousand college students to try and rectify the situation. But that’s not the same as encouraging activism from below in the members. And it’s not the activation of organic leaders.

These students were sent out like salespeople with a corporate style “sales pitch” for union membership. That created weak bonds even when they did recruit new members - compared to say a worker who is taught to organise their own workplace. Those links are organic and much stronger.

This is a problem not only in our unions but on the left too. The neoliberal onslaught forced the working class to retreat - for many on the left this meant hiding away in the colleges falling into tedious and divisive discussions about identity, postmodernism and other bullshit.

The composition of your average socialist group was mainly students and academics - they promised themselves they were in a holding position until working class struggles broke out and then new working class leaders would emerge.

But the academic and student left often wouldn’t give way and waves of working class activists came in and just drifted back out. There needs to be a fight in our unions and on the left to make them places of recruitment, training and education of a layer of organic working class fighters.

In 1997 the AFL-CIO in the USA spent $30 million on organising but $5 million of that was on TV ads, another $30 million went on political donations and $20 on renovating their headquarters! The money was spent hiring young college educated people from a middle class background to go out and win workers.

This wasn’t an organic strategy - and it failed. Every worker needs to be taught to be an organiser and a potential leader. Education and training while in struggle is key to grassroots trade unionism and the fight for a socialist Ireland.

The unions are tied to the system - that’s their job. But a grassroots trade union strategy is about more than just forcing the unions to fight - it’s more profound than that. We’re out to empower grassroots workers so they can picture themselves running the country themselves.

All trade unions are part of the capitalist system - they want to get a good price for the sale of labour, not end the system whereby workers are bought and sold as commodities. As socialist Karl Marx once said:

“The history of these Unions is a long series of defeats of the working men, interrupted by a few isolated victories. All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand on the labour market. Hence the Unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation.”

The unions are:

“The military school of the working men in which they prepare for the great struggle which cannot be avoided” and again “the real fruit of their battle lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers.”

The goal of a class war trade union strategy is not just to win our immediate aims, be that higher wages or opposition to outsourcing, but to produce more organic leaders in the working class.

That then becomes the test of your success or failure. Are there more working class voices who know their stuff, who can lead struggle, who are recognised as leaders by other workers? If the answer is no, then you’re failing.

“The alternative rise and fall of wages, and the continual conflicts between masters and men resulting therefrom, are, in the present organisation of industry, the indispensable means of holding up the spirit of the labouring classes, of combining them…and of preventing them from becoming apathetic, thoughtless, more or less well-fed instruments of production. In a state of society founded on the antagonism of classes, if we want to prevent Slavery in fact as well as in name, we must accept war.” Marx said.

Without class war the working class becomes “apathetic, thoughtless, more or less well-fed instruments of production”. Class war trade unionism - based on a rank and file approach - is practical in the short term and offers the possibility of fighting for a different Ireland in the long term.

If you agree then join the Red Network!