Across the Arab world, unrest continues to mount. Though not revolutions in the full sense of the word, the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have set the example that more and more people are standing up to follow. As we watch history unfold before our eyes, it is hard to know what comes next. But talk of global revolution is certainly premature.

In Tunisia, Mohamed Ghannouchi is still prime minister, as he was under the now-deposed Ben Ali from 1999. Though most of the regime’s senior figures have been removed from office following further unrest, the same repressive state apparatus remains in place. Demonstrators have continued to be killed on the streets since Ben Ali’s departure.

In Egypt, the army has dissolved parliament and set a time frame of six months to hand over to a civilian administration. Meanwhile, they have effectively banned strike action, and reports are emerging of the detention and torture of demonstrators by the same people now handed the reigns of power. Tahrir Square has remained a focal point for demonstrators, while sporadic strike action has continued in defiance of the country’s new military rulers.

It remains to be seen what the final outcome will be in either case. But the talk among elites continues to be of “reform” and “transition,” in the name of “stability” and a return to normality. In other words, throw the people a bone, but leave the existing power structures in place. No doubt, where they cannot be put down entirely, the same argument will be made regarding unrest elsewhere.

In Algeria, the foreign minister promised to end 19-year-old emergency laws “within days,” hoping to quell the discontent there as people call for more protests. In Jordan, restrictions on public assembly are to be eased. Both countries are eager to placate their populations in order to avoid the scenes which overtook their neighbours.

On the other hand, both Bahrain and Yemen are going with the stick over the carrot. After a death during Bahraini protests, riot police further stoked tensions by opening fire upon the funeral of the man killed. This escalated in March with an intervention by Saudi troops at the  Bahraini government’s request. In Yemen, the state is deploying the tactic we saw in Egypt of plainclothes agents masquerading as “pro-government supporters.” Supported by police wielding tasers and batons, they have turned demonstrations into a violent battleground.

Kuwait, not yet caught up in the tidal wave, has announced the distribution of $4bn and free food for 14 months to all citizens. Between the concessions and the confrontations, it is clear that the rulers of the Arab world are finally starting to fear their subjects, as anger at unemployment and austerity merges with demands for political freedom.

The elites in the affected countries, as well as their foreign backers, will certainly wish to preserve the status quo - whether entirely unaltered or with a new face at the top and some appeasement. The people, yearning for freedom, are building their own vision for society as their movements grow - and self-organisation and mutual aid certainly appear integral to what they are forging for themselves through rebellion.

We don’t yet know what will win out, and the result could be radically different in each place. But, as the struggles continue, our solidarity has to go to the working class of those nations now in upheaval. Not just against the dictators, but against the capitalist system that supports them.

It’s said that only the little people pay taxes. The government seem to agree. VAT went up to 20% in January. Barclays Bank paid £113m in corporation tax, which was just 2.4% of its annual profit. Boots paid just £14m last year, about 3% of its profits. Vodafone were famously let off £6 billion by George Osborne when he became chancellor. Lots of big companies pay a lower proportion of tax than those of us in work pay national insurance, let alone income tax.

To make sure that this continues, the government are cutting the tax inspectors at HM Revenue and Customs. And they have even more audacious plans for removing corporation tax for big companies on their overseas earnings and allowing them to offset their costs against profits here, meaning they pay even less. Tax expert Richard Murphy has estimated that this will run into billions of pounds lost to the exchequer, leaving ordinary people to suffer in increased personal taxes and cuts to services.

The grassroots campaign UK Uncut has been taking direct action aimed at disrupting those businesses which are most blatant in avoiding tax. The government pretend that “we’re all in this together” and repeat the Thatcherite mantra that there is no alternative. The truth is that the government will always act in the interests of big business, that’s what they are there for. That doesn’t mean they have to go unchallenged. If British people were on the streets as they have been in Egypt, Tunisia or Greece, would the government really be sanctioning another huge tax cut for those who least deserve one?

Remember the boom?

The anti-cuts movement should avoid the temptation of blaming public spending cuts on greedy bankers or Tory politicians. Given that bankers, and Tories, tend to be a pretty obnoxious lot it is perhaps understandable that they are used as hate figures by the left. However they are a symptom rather than the cause of the crisis.

The starting point in understanding the cuts are the changes in the ownership of wealth that have occurred over the last 30 years. The last three decades, under both Tory and Labour governments have seen the richest 10% of the population grab an increasing share of the wealth. Profits have steadily risen while the share of national output taken by wages has steadily declined, shrinking from around 60% in 1980 to 53% in 2007. Between 2000 and 2007, productivity increased at almost twice the rate of real wages. In other words, Britain worked harder, for less – and this was during the ‘good days’ of the economic boom.

The ability of the rich to grab the lion’s share of the profits has resulted in the real terms pay of many workers either stagnating or declining. This is reflected in the fact the population working on low pay has almost doubled from 12% in 1977 to over 22% today. The massive transference of society’s wealth to the rich has had two effects.  As profits increased, the private wealth of a small minority exploded leaving the rich with ever larger amounts of money that needed investing, a process repeated around the world. As the wealth of the world’s richest grew they began to invest in ever-larger amounts, creating a tidal wave of hot money that circulated the globe in search of quicker and higher returns.

At the same time stagnating and falling wages in Britain meant that people increasingly turned to debt in order to get by. The banks acted as the brokers between the hot money and those seeking loans.  Banks profits soared on the back of debt encouraging them to go on a lending frenzy handing out ever larger loans that could not be repaid. The rest is history; defaults on repayments began to grow and financial panic set in.

But even here we still have not reached the true cause of the financial crisis. For the crucial question is what has changed in Britain in the last 30 years that has allowed the rich to increase their share of the wealth? The answer is that there has been a dramatic shift in power in the battle between capitalism and organised labour.

From the second world war right up to the 1970’s there existed in Britain a powerful workplace-based trade union movement which was able to demand ever higher wages and increased spending on welfare and services. This process came to an abrupt end when Thatcherism defeated workplace militancy. This meant a shift in the balance of class forces in favour of the rich, who used their growing power to drive down wages and cut services.

The root cause of the financial crisis then is the defeat of organised workers. As profits grew at the expense of wages borrowing increased to make up the shortfall. Debt was used to pay the bills in the home and fund services and welfare provision. The rich having increased their share of the wealth then in effect lent the money back to us with the banks exploiting their position as intermediaries to increase profits. Bank lending then got out of hand leading to the current financial crisis. To fight the cuts therefore we need to organise and create a ‘crisis’ that will frighten the life out of capitalism.

Making the country ungovernable

All across the country there are rumblings of discontent. Town halls where cuts votes have been taking place have been stormed or occupied in Lewisham, Lambeth, Southampton, Haringey, Camden and Barnet. Hundreds have taken part in UK Uncut actions, shutting down the high street names engaged in the most blatant tax avoidance. New Cross library in South London, threatened with closure, was also occupied, while people in Stony Stratford, Buckinghamshire withdrew every single book in protest at plans to close it. This follows on from the student riots in November and December last year, which saw thousands take to the streets to demonstrate their anger at cuts to education funding and a tripling of university tuition fees.

For the most part these actions have been more than just symbolic, and have disrupted business as usual – whether that’s the normal day’s trading of a high street store or the passing of austerity measures in a council session. Disruption – and in particular economic damage – is something the government can’t ignore. It’s also something well within the power of ordinary people to do, as the aforementioned actions across Britain show. If we don’t like what the government is doing to the country, we must make the country ungovernable! Only by making austerity measures the more expensive option can we prevent their implementation.

Such a strategy will be opposed by the official representatives of the movement. For them, the goal is simply to ‘have our say’. Union leaders mostly hope to channel discontent with the Tories and their Lib Dem accomplices into an electoral swing to Labour in 4 years time – talking the talk but avoiding sustained industrial action in favour of symbolic marches and petitions.They conveniently forget the last 13 years of Labour government, and that many of the austerity measures today are simply an acceleration of Labour policies.

Labour politicians were first in line to milk the expenses system, tax pensions, send young working-class men and women to fight needless wars, enact increasingly authoritarian laws, privatise public services through the back door, as well as introduce university tuition fees despite promising not to, and the list goes on. As chancellor, Alistair Darling promised to implement cuts that would be “deeper and tougher” than during the Thatcher era if Labour won the last general election.

Make no mistake – the interests of union bureaucrats and labour politicians on the one hand, and the working class facing austerity on the other are diametrically opposed. The former want to harness popular anger to propel them back into power. To this end, they insist on “orderly mobilisation”, a movement managed from above by bureaucrats and careerists. Their role will always be to stage-manage popular discontent, release some pressure, and ensure it is never a significant danger to the ruling class.

Against this, thousands of ordinary workers and students have been showing the way, creating merry disorder and disruption. Such discontent could well go nowhere. But it could also build into an unstoppable force. Whilst bureaucrats sneer at those who refuse to be a prop for their posturing, the rest of us should be supporting them. The only reason that direct action has yet to win anything significant is because it’s still not the majority carrying it out. But mass direct action can bring any government to its knees.

Battling the bureaucrats

The TUC’s response to the government’s vicious cuts agenda has been milder than a diluted chicken korma, solely concentrating on an “orderly mobilisation” for the March 26 demonstration. Any other sort of movement by angry workers has been ignored or actively discouraged. Meanwhile, TUC-affiliated unions such as Unite and Unison have abandoned or even worked against militant workers in struggles such as at the Visteon car factory in North London, the Vestas wind turbine factory in the  Isle of Wight and the Latin American cleaners in Central London.  

Clearly, those looking to actually defeat the cuts will have to go it  alone, without the support of Barber and his £150,000/year salary! Barber and the TUC have pitted themselves against all those aiming to  materially improve their lives, organising a call centre at Congress House (TUC HQ) in order to collaborate with police to detain  ‘troublemakers’ on the March 26 demonstration, the very same police who violently suppressed student demonstrations over tuition fees late last year leaving scores injured and 20 year-old Alfie Meadows requiring brain surgery after an unprovoked truncheon attack.

But the bureaucrats and careereists aren’t having it all their own way. National Union of Students leader Aaron Porter had to be rescued by police in Manchester, while his stand-in and a Labour MP were egged off the stage. In Glasgow he wasn’t so lucky and was ‘kettled’ by angry students, while TUC head honcho Brendan Barber was also literally left with egg on his face following an uninspiring, half-empty TUC Rally on campus at  Goldsmiths College,  South East London.

Name and shame blacklist collaborators

A construction worker is calling for Unite union officers who colluded in the blacklisting of trade unionists to be named and shamed. Five union officers have been identified by the Unite, but only one is being investigated. Colin Trousedale, who was a victim of blacklisting in the building industry, said: “It appears to me that these officers will go unpunished if it is left up to the hierarchy of the union both past and present! We must continue with our endeavours to unmask these wretches and make them face the wrath of their victims if nothing else. I have seen three comrades go to the grave without the chance of clearing their name or at least having the knowledge of who in our union betrayed them, I will not go to mine without justice for them and myself.”

Crisis in care - Sam, Sheffield

I work as a support worker for a private company that provides social care for people in Sheffield for people with learning disabilities and mental health issues. The company I work operates across the city. According to government officials, cuts to public spending will not harm front line services, workers, or service users. The reality of the situation is that working conditions are getting worse, day services are closing down, and those paying for the support services are being excluded from any of the decisions relating to care they supposedly direct and influence.

The Sheffield city council budget has been slashed by 8.35% for next year, and this has amounted to a huge cut to front line care. What this has amounted to on the ground is a huge reduction in staffing levels, pushing local unemployment even higher. Those left in the job are left with the unenviable task of filling in the gaps, which means being over worked, and stressed. Many care workers, some with over 20 years experience, are finding it too stressful to carry on, and are walking away from the job, meaning that the most qualified staff in the company are leaving, while new employees, who often aren’t given a decent (and legally required) level of training before they are left to work with clients. This is dangerous to both clients, who often have serious health issues, and to workers, who are not given help to do the job safely (some clients have histories of challenging behaviour, violence etc).

Many of the people I work with have been sent into intense panic, fearing that their disability benefits will be cut and that they will be forced onto a work fare scheme in order to claim. This has led to increased difficulties at work, which again impacts upon the well being of clients and staff. For staff, we have been given an indefinite pay freeze (rates of pay are already extremely low – and the price of food, bills, rent etc has risen fairly sharply in recent months) and a loss of a chance of promotion and advancement within the company. The tactics of management have in recent weeks been an attempt to shift responsibility downwards. In essence, this means an unpaid promotion – increased work hours and responsibilities without extra pay. People are worried, and the constant upheavals in company policy leave staff and clients confused. Many people within the company care deeply about the people they support, and the fact that they are leaving is causing massive emotional stress on all sides.

The company I work for claims to be not-for-profit, this tends to give people the impression that the company operates with some kind of ethical policy. The reality is that instead of money being invested in desperately needed equipment for staff (such as computers that are less than a decade old) instead money has been spent on redecorating the offices of the executive managers and the reception area of the company (in order to make it ‘look more professional’ – the appearance of good care being more easily achieved than the practice of good care).

The company has also engaged in the bizarre tactic of employing agency staff to work as short term “bank workers” in order to plug the gaps created by the redundancies they have introduced. This means that for every worker the company gets from an agency they are paying for two (agencies charge ‘service rates’ which are roughly the same as the employees wages). Essentially this means that the company is firing experienced and dedicated workers to employ untrained and short term agency workers, while paying double the cost for the privilege. The reasons behind this plan seem fairly obvious. Agency workers are in a precarious position, and if they complain about being over worked, and under paid then they can be fired with no notice, whereas an employee cannot. The changes that management want to bring in over the next few months require a work force that does not feel secure, and able to resist the exploitation that is happening.

Letter: the pitfalls of professionalising negotiation - Rob, Hackney

hile surfing around the week’s upcoming events listings I came across one which is fairly typical of trade union umbrella the TUC, to train negotiators ahead of pay rounds which are likely to be marked by austerity cuts.

The idea of training days like The Pay Challenge in 2011 is, ostensibly, to give people a solid overview of the state of play nationwide and an idea of the tactics that could be used when talking to management in negotiations to push up claims.

So far, so average. But what caught my eye was the prices. To get such information is £125 plus VAT if you’re a registered TUC affiliate or an eye-watering £215 plus VAT for anyone else. Exclusive much?

I’m pretty skeptical of the actual value of these things in any case - in the end all negotiation comes down to leverage and either you’ve got it or you ain’t, the best training under these circumstances boils down to giving newbie shop stewards the confidence to tell their manager where to get off when they have the backing of their colleagues. Being able to mouth off convincingly about the economic implications of cuts and their relation to prices, inflation etc etc is really rather extraneous when managers can simply say “good point, but I’m just the monkey and the organ grinders, they’re saying no.”

Nevertheless I’d have thought that given training is supposed to be one of the TUC’s few specific, ongoing responsibilities the price of something like this would be incorporated in the millions upon millions of pounds we already pay through our collective union membership dues.

But I suspect this is not what these little soirees are actually meant for. This is the sort of high-up circus which paves the way for union bureaucrats to waltz into offices up and down the country sounding like they’re the only ones competent to do business with our bosses.
Having been on the end of that myself as a newbie shop steward, It does sound pretty impressive when the boss’s arguments get shot down by a confident professional from the union (less so when it becomes clear that such arguments have made very little impact and in the end amount to a complicated form of begging).

But such professionalising of negotiation - and at those prices it’s got to be if you’re ever going to recoup your outlay unless you can directly pick up £200-odd extra in wages for the year off the back of it - in the end amounts to another means of deadening grassroots initiative. It helps give bureaucrats the assumed authority to tell lay reps to pipe down when they complain about sell-outs on the grounds that “I’ve been at this for years, I’m a trained negotiator who’s dedicated my life to the movement, who the fuck are you?”

Casualisation at BFI - Jan, South London

asualisation has not evaded the British Film Institute and its effects are well known: less staff, a higher workload, divided workers, deskilling, fear and disinterest in our rights - all of which makes corporate moves easier and less accountable, even in public institutions. If we are to fight casualisation, we cannot rely on a change in consciousness without a change in contracts.

A classic case of chicken and egg: the casuals will not fight for their rights because they have no rights. Here the work of the reformist  unions can be a useful supplement to self-organised workplace militancy. Two aspects are worth noting: through small victories the workers are brought together in our grievances and power, and union density is directly correlated to a drop in casualisation. The process of pursuing workplace grievances and a change in contracts should be used to demonstrate the interests of the managers, their incompetence, the weaknesses of workplace hierarchy and the limits of union interests.

The attack on casualisation will then come from different corners and using different methods. Through maintaining self-organised agitation and direct action alongside any union dispute we make sure that our horizon is not social democratic reformism, but class struggle. We also open up a space between the unions and management which makes easier our self-organised direct action.

Fears are growing for the 72 immigrant workers detained by the UK  Border Agency  (UKBA) at Guy and St Thomas’ Hospital, London in Februrary.  Very  little is known of the whereabouts of the 72 disappeared, who had been contracted to work as ancillary staff in the hospital by Reed temp agency. 

The only definitive update to emerge since the raid is that three of them have pleaded guilty to ‘fraud’, a charge levied against  them for collecting their ‘illegal’ wages from the hospital (as if  cleaning toilets for minimum wage wasn’t bad enough).

A demonstration was called by the Latin American Workers Association  outside the hospital a couple of weeks later, but still no word was  forthcoming on the whereabouts of the 72.  The raid sets a worrying  precedent, being, as it was, a joint operation between UKBA and the  Metropolitan Police with the collaboration of the NHS Counter-Fraud  Service and Guy and St Thomas’ NHS Trust itself. 

The NHS bosses’ silent cooperation with one of the British state’s most ruthless  entities will be especially bitter for the 72 and their families, who are now unable to even locate their loved ones, now that the British  state has deemed them surplus to requirement and therefore ready to be returned to their countries of origin.

This follows on from an earlier raid in Nov 2010 on a McDonalds in  Catford, South East London, in which local UKBA agents trumpeted the deportation of ‘illegal’ workers as ‘successful’. In June 2009, a UKBA raid at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), in collaboration with SOAS management provoked an angry student occupation of management offices.

Campaigners point out that the precarious situation of migrant workers is no coincidence, but is part of wider cutbacks. “Exactly when cuts and privatisation are threatening our public health service the exploitation of migrant labour increases. This is an attack on all workers.”