this handful of sectarians will stop at nothing.

Eh?

This position was held by Engineers Union official Paul Tolich in the 1980’s.

So Nick Kelly is taking the same path as Paul Tolich.

Kelly was in the Labour party as a young one and then got kicked out for taking an principled stand against the brutal war on Afghanistan. I do not think he is anything like the Labour Party EMPU stooge Tolich.

Why then draw a parallel between the two of them?

I’m sure they have very different personalities and personal politics. However, there is a long history of radicals taking official union positions and ending up die-hard reformists. Radicals really need to work on an analysis of union bureaucracy and structures.

What are the relations between union officials and rank and file workers? Are union officials still part of the working class? If not where not they fit in the class structures of capitalism? How much agency can a radical really have as a union official in a modern union? Why is a small, but growing, number of radicals taking up official positions in unions, yet we have not seen any increase in radicalism across the working class as a whole? Can union officials help build democracy or can it only came from rank and file members?

It’s a systemic issues and it requires a systemic analysis combined with a radical plan of action.

Stephen

PS. If Nick or anyone else has that plan I beg of you please share it with us.

PSS. I don't think Paul Tolich was ever radical (but other people were and ended up much like him).

Nick Kelly went into this contested election as a known Workers Party member. He'd previously regularly circulated The Spark among busdrivers and when asked at the meeting if he was a communist, replied yes.
So the busdrivers were all well aware of what was on offer. Nick's openly socialist position is a marked contrast to the opportunist practice of concealing one's real politics in union, local body or parliamentary elections. Its also a powerful disincentive to becoming a diehard reformist.
Nick did not take up his union position as a precuressor to writing an elegant academic paper about systemic structures. Those interested in such projects would be better to carry them out themselves rather than beg them from busy socialist union activists.

Nick's comrade,
Don Franks

I believe Paul Tolich was the one who had Nick forceably removed from the Labour Party conference(?) Made me laugh, even though I don't share Nick and Don's politics. Don - Why do you equate a systemic analysis of the role of unions in capitalism with elitist academia? I can't see why this should be the case.

Malcolm

union members are the best people to demand and ensure union democracy. yeah, maybe the state of unions in NZ is pretty crap, but all the more reason to build union power from the workers rather than the officials.

Why is because the abstract list of exam questions Stephen posited to Nick is on all fours with the approach and values of elitist academia.

I think it is presumptuous of Stephen to berate Nick with his list when the drivers have scarcely got back on into their busses after the stopwork meeting. If these questions were particular concerns of the drivers I'm sure they would have raised them at the meeting. Its nice of Stephen to set out his idea of what the burning issues are for Nick and the drivers, but in my expeience questions of bureaucracy and democracy in unions are only of interest to workers if they are concrete. As it stands, Stephen's list is an arid academic exercise good for little except his own amusement.

Don

Absolutely Don!

From: not a Workers Party member, but an anarcho communist of sorts.

lead union by worker party. smash capitalism much good. do. think not. do do do.

What is the relationship between a union official and a semi anonymous Indy blogger?
Why is it that a small but growing number of union officials don't go to the first Friday drinks anymore?
Can union officials help build a brick shithouse if the parts are all numbered?
Why do all the buses have those irritating bloop bloopy things by the doors?

I’m sorry if anyone feels that I was berating Nick. That was not my intention. My questions about union leadership were really for all radicals. Nick’s name was there because of the post this thread is on. Also Nick is part of the Workers Party, which has experienced activists and radical academics (unless they have been expelled for being to arid or abstract) that could work on the issue of the modern union bureaucracy. Then it wouldn’t take much time away from a “busy socialist union activists” and their important work of taking about Paul Tolich in union press releases for no reason other than their own ego.

My Questions were not for the workers, they were for radicals that want to engage with workers. If I were to engage with the rank and file of the Tramways Union I would of course put my radical agitation in a much more concrete form, just as I do when I engage with the workers at my own work.
Just to let you know where I’m coming from, the issue of union leadership is a hot topic on the floor of my work place because they have always sold the workers out and are about to do it again (union bureaucrats are total scum).
Back to my questions, I’m sorry if the were to abstract and I think you have a point. It is more an issue of my poor writing skill than me being an elitist academic (can I have you for a CV referee?). But two points, 1) It would not be hard to give those questions a more concrete form. 2) Often radicals will have to look at elements of capitalisms in abstract ways (Marx’s sure did).

Radical action needs radical theory and vice-versa.

I just want to say I support the Bus drivers 100% and I will try to mobilise as many people from my work place as possible in support of any action they take. Nick should not hesitate to contact me for any cross union support.

Stephen

Looking forward to seeing the grand action plan of radical analysis Stephen must surely have designed for his own workplace.

Don, I think Stephen has some valid points which are worth discussing. Discussion and critical debate is essential in any wrokplace, community, or class. Action without thought or some acknowledgement of past action or theory is pointless — as is calling any discussion of radical ideas 'elitist academia', especially socialist or radical ones at that.

Take Blackball this year, which you were at. 'Academics', historians etc etc played a huge role in pulling that together with the help of workers and unionists — to discuss history and radical ideas. I'm over-simplifying your arguement, I know, but to move forward we need to shrug of this 'anti-intellectual' mindset and engage with any discussion of radical change, pratical or theoretical.

Cheers

Jared D

I wasn't at Blackball. Several things about that exercise did not appeal to me. If there was half as much union office enthusiasm for illegal strikes today as there seems to be for actions long in the past we'd be better off.

I don't dismis 'any' discussion of radical ideas, I dismiss bullshit.
Stephen was taking potshots at Nick for being a potential sellout a few minutes after his election. It's not 'anti intellectual' to see that sort of activity as pathetic.

I agree with the poster above; Stephen's most powerful argument would be the demonstrated application of his analytical powers to his own workplace. That would incline the rest of us to be more grateful for his unsolicited advice.

Don

Sorry Don, thought you played that night — mistaken identity!

I agree with your point about today's union interets on the past instead of the future, hence the need for radical discussion focused on current union structure and radical alternatives.

On a side note, luckily Blackball was relatively free of EPMU/Labour tripe and was relatively inspiring, especially the IWW talk by Mark Derby.

Cheers

Jared D

Everybody on the left is a potential sellout. It has nothing to do with Nick personally. Its just he is the only one to brag about taking up an official union position on indy.

I’m doing my best at my workplace, so don’t anybody worry that it is being neglected by me (my plan mostly entails fighting for union democracy and encouraging workers self active). However I feel it important to examine broader issues of capitalism and radical politics as well, and radicals taking up official union position falls with in that. I would think the WP, with such a large percentage of their members in official union position, would have a lot to say on the topical (it’s never been mentioned in any WP publication I have seen).

Stephen

I'll have a shot at answering a few of Stephen's questions, although I don't claim to be an expert on any of them.

"What are the relations between union officials and rank and file workers?"

That depends entirely on the union and the officials in question. I remember reading Jock Barnes (leader of the wharfies union in '51) memoirs, and how he talked about how the WWU used to have meetings every months that all the members would turn up to, they would discuss the issues of the day and would vote on them accordingly, and this is how union policy was formed. Nothing quite like that exists at Tramways at the moment, and Nick can't just wave his magic wand and make it happen overnight, but what he can do is consistently strughgle to defend the interests of the bus workers and to involve them in the democratic process as much as possible and to mobilise the workers in his union on a militant, class struggle basis. Being elected to a position like the one he now holds opens up a lot of opportunties to do that that don't exist as a grass roots member, and gives you the ability to actually shape and implement policy that you otherwise can't. At the very least there will be a culture that is much more receptive to radical ideas in Tramways with Nick at the top than there would have been had the President been your typical union bearucrat.

"Are union officials still part of the working class? If not where not they fit in the class structures of capitalism?"

Something of a loaded question. Nick will continue to work as a bus driver as President - he won't be sitting in a plush office paid for by union dues. Nick will continue to sell his labour-power to the capitalist class, and will remain very much a worker. As to the question of union officals in the abstract, I think that depends on the union official in question and the precise role they play.

"How much agency can a radical really have as a union official in a modern union? "

Depends on the union (I know I'm saying that a lot, but discussion of these issues have to be based on concrete reality, not totally abstract theory that due to it's lack of any links with reality degenerates all too easily into dogmatism and petty sectarian bullshit). The EPMU, for example, actually has a clause that says officials can only contest elections on a communist platform with express permission of the Exec. However, other unions are much more open to radical ideas. WP comrades have done a lot of good work within Unite, and comrades who work as organisers have actually come into contact with and recruited low paid, working class people to revolutionary politics. Involvement in unions, including running for elections and holding positions, is an important aspect of our engagement with the working class.

"Why is a small, but growing, number of radicals taking up official positions in unions, yet we have not seen any increase in radicalism across the working class as a whole?"

There are less than two dozen revolutionaries holding union positions throughout the country, and as far as I'm aware Nick's role as President is the only one that could truly be called a leadership role. It's no wonder that we havnt seen a mass surge in class struggle as a result of this! And the resurgence of class struggle is a much more dialectical process than this - it doesn't happen just because a whole lof of Bolshie union officials go and tell the workers they should go on strike and start reading Capital! It doesn't work that way. Subjective efforts of revolutionaries in working class struggles (including the union movement) is a factor in building up class struggle, and is the defining factor that can push the class consciousness over the edge from a "trade union consciousness" to a revolutionary one. But the objective, material conditions also have to change for there to be a major resurgence in class struggle, and with the small and weak nature of the far left in NZ today there's only so much we can do. If you were truly interested in promoting working class militancy, Stephen, you'd be applauding the fact that blue collar bus workers just elected a revolutionary communist as their union President! Instead, you snipe at him and whinge about how he is "bragging" and "egotistical". This is a VICTORY, albeit a small one, for both our anti-capitalist movement and the working class as a whole, and you're denigration of it doesn't say much for you're dedication to either.

"Can union officials help build democracy or can it only came from rank and file members? "

You're not asking questions here Stephen - you're pushing an anti-leadership agenda of your own. At least be open about that.

Of course union officials can help to build up democracy in the union. Nick has been democratically elected by his co-workers, first to the negotiations comittee between the union and the bosses, and now the role of union President. Considering his relatively short time on the site, ths shows how quickly he has won the workers confidence in him personally, and also his politics, which he has been completely open about.

Nick was, is and will continue to be a rank and file member who drives a bus in Wellington. He will also be the President of the union, and a leader of the union's members, who cast their rank and file votes in favour of him.

We should all be welcoming this news as a victory, and a very positive development. Wait until Nick actually does sell out and become a despicable class enemy (that's what union leaders do right :D) before you condemn him as one.

Above comment was by me... I need to remember to sign my comments.

Alastair Reith, Workers Party.

Stephen, seeing as how your so interested in this subject - what do you say to a situation where a union bureaucrat unilateraly bans communists from participation in a union and where a communist on the union's management committee advises his comrades not to fight back and himself sides with the bureacracy?

I have never sided with the bureacracy in my life. Even if I wanted to I couldn't of sided with anyone because the management committee didn't have any say of any power, it was all in the hands of Matt McCarten. Maybe I didn't handle the best way, but I never told people not to fight back. Anyway the WP didn't fight back, they sucked up. They sucked up to Matt McCarten, which is what you have to do to work at unite because there are no democratic structures in the union, and wp members have happily worked with the people who tried to have them baned.

Stephen

I don't know if I was supposed to be the other person mentioned in that comment (because I'm still really unclear what I'm meant to have done). But I'll state categorically again (as I have before) that I never banned, suggested banning, or would try to ban, communists or workers party members from Unite. Although like Stephen I probably could have dealth with it better.

I'm not going to debate what happened over two years ago on indymedia, but if anyone from the workers party does want to talk about it or ask questions, I'm free.

Grace

PS I think the original questions Stephen asked are really important, and i would write something about them, if I wasn't somewhat otherwise engaged at the moment.

"Being elected to a position like the one he now holds opens up a lot of opportunties to do that that don't exist as a grass roots member, and gives you the ability to actually shape and implement policy that you otherwise can't."

This line pretty much sums up Stephens point, and shows quite clearly the problem of certain trade union structure. If a rank and file member can't shape policy then the group (union, community or 'party') has problems...

Jared D

Stephen wrote:
"and wp members have happily worked with the people who tried to have them baned."

Actually, no we haven't. We have no working relationship at all with the particular person who declared that we were banned from Unite.

That individual's attempt to impose a ban failed and Matt McCarten actually apologised over the incident, even though Matt had no hand in it.

Indeed, Matt was rather more outraged by the attempted ban than I recall you were at the time Steve. Perhaps that's why we work better with him than we do with you.

In any case, the election of a revolutionary to the presidency of the bus drivers union in Wellington should be cause for celebration not petty sectarian sour grapes.

Also, since this position is not a paid official position, but one where you continue as a bus driver, the kind of contradiction you raise isn't the porblem you suggest. Nick is still a rank-and-file bus driver.

Anyway, I look forward to reading posts about your own involvements in rank-and-file industrial disputes. What are you up to in the class struggle these days?

Phil

Stephen weren't you on the national executive of Unite for 2 years or so?

Stephen,

Aren't you a member of the Rail and Maritime Union? They are affiliated to the Labour Party. I wonder how much you've done to raise this within the union or led struggles to get them to withdraw from the LP?

Phil,

You seem to associate trade unions as the only place for class struggle, would you agree? Because you comment seems to ignore a multitude of other areas for social change, and is rather condescending.

Jared D

Hahaha.
Marxist-Leninism - 57 varieties.

What a double standard Stephen has.
He demands a comprehensive analysis and action plan from Nick five minutes after his election.
For his own part, we're to be contented with a one sentence assurance that on his own jobStephen's 'doing his best, so don't anybody worry'.

Indeed there are more important things to worry about.

The original post was about a major Wellington union holding an election, electing a militant leadership - not just Nick- and setting out to get more from the boss.
Why don't we all concentrate on the future of that?

Hey Stephen, weren't you running as a candidate for the Anti-Capitalist Alliance (former name of the Workers Party) in the 2005 General Election?

You're just being petty and personal.

It's this sort of thing that rank and file union folk, unlike the Wellington activist ghetto, usually find a turn off ... and boring.

“Indeed, Matt was rather more outraged by the attempted ban than I recall you were at the time Steve. Perhaps that's why we work better with him than we do with you.”

You seem to be suggesting I supported the ban of WP from Unite. But as a member of WP at the time that means I would have been supporting banning myself. I really don’t know where you are getting this from.

I’m glad that you can work so well with somebody who doesn’t care about even basic bourgeois democracy;

www.unite.org.nz/

Let alone union democracy, and has such high praise for the Labour Party

www.unite.org.nz/

and also who has helped bring union and police together and used unite to push and education program that excluded immigrants (but made unite money).

I have been accused of doing two completely opposite things, sometimes by the same person in the same post. That I was being to abstract (which has some truth in it) and the opposite being that I want some detailed plan for Nick’s specific situation. I don’t want Nick or anyone to talk about the specific plan to radicalise their work place on an open forum. But I will say to those who have accused me of not giving Nick any time to formulate a plan since his election, if he didn’t have some sort of broad, yet flexible, plan before the election, he may find it hard to say on any course after it.

I was on the national executive of Unite and unite was so undemocratic that it has really instilled a deep mistrust of union leadership and bureaucracy. When I look back I now realise that I had no idea what I was doing. I thought I did, but it was just my ego getting in the road. I really needed help, even though I didn’t ask for any, but the ACA/WP (I was a member then) didn’t even think of trying to help. They were just so self-satisfied that they had a member in that position they didn’t about democracy or what I did (but they happy to use it against me after I have left them, they have also made up stuff that I never did).

Part of the reason I ask about Radicals and union positions is that I now hold a low position in my union branch. Since it was an uncontested election I made it clear that all I would do, in that position (as a rank and file member I say all sorts of crazy stuff), is fight to build more union democracy (also that I will in no way support the Labour part). I really didn’t want a position on the branch exe, but so many of my fellow workers asked me to do it (dam my ego). So far I think it’s been a wast of time. I’ve done a lot of work with organizing branch meeting (the first my workplace has had in about three year) but I could of done all that as a rank and file member. So what is the point of working you way up the union ladder?

Stephen

Frankly, get over it.

The police arent even being given 4% rise and they do a HELL OF A HARDER job than driving a dam bus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sort it out and realise life is as it is ... grow up, everyone is struggling.

and together we can all win the struggle