Rail Workers’ Strikes

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Workers' and Politics:
Rail Workers’ Strikes
Arriva Rail Workers Stage Militant Two-Day Strike
South West Rail Workers to Stage 48-hour Strike
Workers and their Interests

Workers' Movement:
Consignia Could Become Another Railtrack
Ambulance Crews Vote to Demand Reinstatement
Unions Criticise 3.5% Pay Rise for Teachers

Iraq sanctions debate at Cambridge Union Society:
British Government Accused of Crimes against Humanity

Cuba:
Our disagreement is not about fighting terrorism, but about the methods used to fight terrorism

Stop the War Coalition Protest: Stop Israel’s War on Palestine

Arriva Rail Workers Stage Militant Two-Day Strike

Hundreds of rail workers staged a 48-hour strike on Thursday and Friday.

Arriva Trains Northern offered guards an 8% pay rise, which the RMT union rejected. The union is campaigning to win the guards pay parity with drivers. Arriva has replaced about 10% of its train services with buses since last October because of a shortage of train drivers.

Transport Secretary Stephen Byers urged both sides to resume talks and condemned the industrial action.

South West Rail Workers to Stage 48-hour Strike

Rail workers on South West Trains will go on 48-hour strike on Monday and Tuesday.

Management and unions were unable to agree even on the conditions for meeting each other again to try to resolve the dispute. The RMT has accused management of having no real intention of wanting a settlement.

A further 48-hour stoppage is due for Tuesday and Wednesday, February 12 and 13.

The issue is again that of pay parity concerning 2,100 station staff and train guards. The union is demanding its members receive the same increase as drivers who were awarded 7.6 per cent last year in an 18-month deal.

Speaking on January 22 in London, RMT acting General Secretary, Vernon Hince, severely criticised South West Trains’ management for failing to respond to the invitation by ACAS to submit the current disputes to arbitration.

Vernon Hince said, "It is now crystal clear that despite statements to the contrary, South West Trains has no intention of seeking an amicable solution to this dispute. The travelling public, regulatory authorities and the Government should be asking why the company is content to allow these strikes to go ahead without attempting a resolution."

Workers and their Interests

Much has been said to obscure the issues involved in the strikes and to denigrate the workers and their trade union leaders.

What is certain is that the workers must take a stand in defence of their own interests, while at the same time becoming conscious of the necessity to end their marginalisation from political affairs and getting organised to do just that.

In this respect, it is not a return to the 1970s which is threatened or which is needed, for the world crisis has deepened since that time, and the interests of the whole society demand that workers take the lead in turning things around. Especially since the reactionary turn of events since September 11, building the Workers’ Opposition to the neo-liberal agenda has become the order of the day, and no question facing the workers can be sorted out unless this is taken up.

There are fears that Consignia could turn into another Railtrack.

The National Audit Office says opening up the postal system to competitors may not be enough to improve services to customers. It says Consignia's strength could be enough to discourage competitors even though present delivery targets were not being met. The report says firms could be reluctant to enter the market, especially if they were only given short-term licences.

The NAO has also warned that on the other hand that if Consignia does lose custom to its competitors it may find it difficult to maintain a universal postal service at current prices or service levels.

Consignia said competition was already building up and the organisation recognised that a tough market would inevitably get tougher.

Should not, therefore, the postal service be run to meet society’s needs rather than be based on competing in the global market?

Paramedics on Merseyside have voted to go on strike unless two of their colleagues are reinstated.

The Ambulance Service Union (ASU) says 87% of its members voted in favour of strike action following the suspension of two paramedics. The ASU represents 160 of the 190 paramedics in the Liverpool and Sefton area, which has about 500,000 residents. Ambulance stations affected by any action are Southport, Maghull, Old Swan, Formby, Fazakerley, Toxteth, Crosby, Kirkby, South Liverpool, Bootle and Anfield.

Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust said it was disappointed by the proposed action by the ASU. A trust spokesman said: "We are disappointed members of the Ambulance Service Union have voted in favour of strike action."

The two paramedics were suspended from work for "gross misconduct" after, they claim, one of them felt ill and they contacted control to say they had finished their shift.

Union area secretary Mark Brooks said there would be a disciplinary hearing with the two men on Friday, January 25. If they are reinstated, the strike will be called off.

In early January 2002, a meeting of union members passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in the senior operational management of the trust's northern area.

Teaching unions have criticised the 3.5% proposed pay rise for teachers as inadequate to end a recruitment crisis facing schools.

In the pay deal, starting salaries will rise to £17,628 from £17,000 while more experienced teachers will get £25,746 within five years, up from £24,843.

National Union of Teachers general secretary Doug McAvoy said: "Sadly, the increase of only 3.5% for all teachers is still well below the growth in average earnings. Even with the shortened scale, the additional cost will be around 4%, well below the increase in average earnings and below the increase for doctors and nurses."

Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the second largest teaching union, called the deal a "mixed bag".

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said he was "remarkably underwhelmed" by the deal. "I do think the Government is being dangerously complacent if it thinks this is going to turn around the recruitment and retention crisis and not only attract people into the profession, but stop the exodus we are suffering from at the present time."

Education Secretary Estelle Morris also announced a radical shake-up of the performance-related pay system (PRP), saying teachers in England and Wales would be eligible to apply for £2,148 bonuses after five years instead of the current seven from September.

A debate took place last night, January 24, at the Cambridge Union Society on the theme: "This House would lift sanctions on Iraq". A panel of guest speakers representing a broad range of concerned public opinion from the spheres of diplomacy, law, finance and economics, argued against the retention of the present sanctions regime on Iraq and expressed alarm at the policies being pursued by the Israeli authorities.

Sir Harold Walker, former British Ambassador to Iraq, called for changes in the sanctions regime that would end the suffering inflicted upon the Iraqi people; for example, less than half of them now have access to potable water. He pointed out that Iraq had been "a second world country not a third world country" before the sanctions were imposed, and that this contradicted claims that no benefits would flow to the ordinary people of Iraq if sanctions were lifted. He warned of the dangers arising from the "evident double standards" of policy towards Iraq and the Israelis.

Colin Rowatt, economist of Birmingham University, likewise argued that the sanctions should not target civilians but should instead target the Iraqi military. He called for a "reconfigured" sanctions regime in which Iraqi oil revenues would still be held in an escrow account as at present but that civilian and military expenditure would be "delinked" more effectively so as to allow gains from trade.

This view was endorsed by Tony Gammon, the Bank of England official responsible for monitory financial aspects of the sanctions, who was critical of the fact that "the same package of sanctions has remained for ten years", leading to a situation where the system is not achieving its aims and should be changed.

Speaking in favour of the lifting of sanctions was Hugh Stephens, organiser of the activities in Britain of the International Commission of Inquiry on Economic Sanctions, whose Co-Presidents include Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the US. In his speech to the debate, Hugh Stephens accused Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, and their Foreign Ministers, Representatives at the United Nations, and other relevant representatives responsible for the continuing economic sanctions against Iraq, of crimes against humanity, and crimes under the Genocide Convention. He also accused them of the violation of international humanitarian norms as expounded in the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles, and other fundamental documents of international law and norms, as interpreted in this connection by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark in his Criminal Complaint issued November 14, 1996, and related documents.

These persons named and unnamed, the speaker said, have knowingly inflicted deprivation, hunger and suffering on a massive scale leading to the deaths of more than a million Iraqi people, the majority being infants and children under five years of age. They have done so by the deliberate deprivation of the entire Iraqi population of supplies essential to life and health, with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions constantly communicated to them by the relevant organisations duly accredited for that purpose by the United Nations. They have engaged in a course of conduct calculated to prevent a relaxation of tension and solution to the problems of the Middle Eastern region, including continuing criminal bombing raids on Iraq and the sabotage of attempts by neighbouring countries to re-establish a peaceful security order in their region. These persons have engaged in the knowing and reckless destruction of the entire fabric of international law painstakingly constructed since the end of the Second World War to prevent precisely such aggressive and genocidal behaviour by major powers, including bringing into disrepute the Security Council of the United Nations and other bodies central to sustaining world peace and security.

The speaker called on all decent people in this country to fulfil their obligations to take action to bring these crimes committed in our name before the court of public opinion, to demand that the sanctions against Iraq be lifted immediately, that those responsible for these crimes be brought to justice, and that reparations be made by the offending powers so far as may be possible to compensate the people of that country for the immeasurable suffering inflicted upon them.

Lord David Hannay, a senior diplomatic figure and former British Ambassador to the United Nations, summed up the debate. He agreed with the other speakers that the sanctions had made the Iraqi people suffer, had not achieved their objective, and should be better targeted. He also said that the policies of the Israeli authorities are "misguided, wrong, and must be changed".

CUBA:

Our disagreement is not about fighting terrorism, but about the methods used to fight terrorism

Excerpt from a press interview given by General Raúl Castro Ruz, minister of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) of Cuba, to the national and foreign press on Saturday, January 19, at the Loma Malones observation point, Guantánamo, after the conclusion of the rally in a nearby municipality. Parts of the interview were broadcast live by US television network ABC and it was summarised by foreign news agencies.

(from the translation of the transcript of the Council of State)

Vivian Sequera (AP): In the recent statement by your government regarding what is happening at Guantánamo Naval Base, Cuba’s offer of support and medical aid is mentioned. Has there been any response from Washington?

Raúl Castro: I don’t know of any reply received during the days I’ve been here in the eastern provinces, or very recently... but I don’t think there has been one yet.

As is only natural, the proposal is being studied, the process is beginning, the prisoners are now arriving. Some 110 have now arrived. Referring to what the Cuban government offered in the statement: eliminating vectors and pests, medical aid, although they’re putting up a 4th-level hospital, and other services. Above all, the United States has a large number of logistical personnel and military police there. In other words, the needs will become clear in the future.

In 1994, we established minimum co-operation links to deal with problems that sprang up. In the situation created in 1994, people were constantly wanting to come and go and we had to establish co-operation; both sides realised that. Both governments authorised a group of themes limited to the base and its perimeters, taking relevant measures to avoid accidents: out if this arose what used to be called a hot line – a telephone used for that type of activity – and it has proved very useful for, in reality, since the triumph of the Revolution until 1994, we had 35 years of a rather complicated and tense atmosphere along the 32-kilometer border, with some moments more tense than others.

There came a moment when we moved back from our posts – not from the fence, but from out posts, in order to avoid incidents... because they would open fire on our posts. There was large amount of rotation of US personnel and the degree of relations and the complexity of our relations was manifested here. It was very complicated, and it was my responsibility to come and talk here. Every time a comrade died, I was designated to come to Guantánamo and talk to a multitude of incensed people, explaining to them what happened.

Later he referred to the last serious provocation at the base, explaining: We went on December 7, 1989, to mark the transfer of the remains of our comrades who died in Angola. Together with Comrade Fidel, we were holding the main ceremony in Cacahual [near Havana] – and at the same moment there were funeral rites in 167 of the island’s 169 municipalities for all those who died. It was a day of tremendous pain for the people, and in what was considered the main ceremony, which was very symbolic because it took place where the remains of General Antonio Maceo are buried. At that very moment, a shot was fired at two soldiers were standing at their post. One called to the other to tell him something, and as he turned his face a sniper’s bullet entered the post, breaking the glass.

You have to imagine what this meant, coming at a moment when the whole country was in mourning and paying tribute to its dead who were being simultaneously buried, with their families and people watching. Because we didn’t bring the remains of the bodies here, all the families were informed that all would return together when we fulfilled the mission in Angola and other places where smaller numbers of Cubans died. That was the moment when the attack took place.

I don’t know how the people of Caimanera found out right away and someone was sent to speak to them. The attack really was one of the stupidest and most dangerous acts of provocation.

In 1994, the events concerning the Cuban and Haitian rafters created a situation that obliged us to co-operate. Since then, there has been absolute calm here, appreciated by both countries.

About two years ago the United States finished withdrawing the tanks they kept here. We, without coming to any agreement, made the gesture of withdrawing our tanks from the frontline border to deeper positions.

A year and a half later, we withdrew all the heavy artillery we kept in tunnels and different locations aimed at the base. And we even moved the mortar positions back. All that is left here are rifles and some anti-air missiles (that are not emplaced).

Currently there is an atmosphere of co-operation, of mutual respect and collaboration.

I want to emphasise that our disagreements in this situation are not about fighting terrorism but about the methods used to fight terrorism.

Referring to the question you asked me, we are willing – as our government’s note states – to engage in any kind of co-operation.

One day, while talking with a retired US general about the positive atmosphere that has been created, I joked, "We are soldiers, we have a duty to the civil authority, to our governments. If our governments order us to bring out the cannons, we must obey orders." I went on, "Until the order comes, let’s have civilised relations." And he understood that.

Naturally, the situation is not acceptable to the animals in Miami, the folks at the [Cuban American National] Foundation and the worst elements of what was the Republic before the Revolution triumphed in January 1959.

Through our government, the United States has informed us that it would bring prisoners and reinforcements to guard them. Up until today [Saturday, January 19], 110 prisoners have arrived and between 1,000 to 1,100 reinforcements, mostly military police and logistical personnel. According to a public statement I read by Brigadier General Lehnert, who heads the Joint Task Force No. 160, their mission is to guard the prisoners.

That same general, when he was a colonel, was also commander of a joint task force in 1995 when the rafters were here. According to US authorities’ statements, they will follow all the norms established by the International Red Cross regarding the treatment of prisoners and have invited that organisation to come to the base.

They have declared that the necessary reinforcements do not imply any danger or threat to the zone’s stability.

We believe them; we understand that it is logical, if a specific number of prisoners are to be brought to the base – over which, as we’ve already said here we have no jurisdiction – then they have to bring in personnel, more or less the number mentioned.

As the January 11 note from our government stated, we are not thinking of increasing our troops around the base’s perimeter, because it’s not necessary, because there’s no tension, as I said. But there is more work, which is why I decided to appoint a second chief of the border brigade. You are all here now and journalists are constantly coming here so we must carry out other activities. And Lieutenant Colonel Victoria Arrúe has been appointed to the post.

Lieutenant Colonel Victoria Arrúe is currently the president of the Association of Veterans of the Cuban Revolution in Guantánamo and she is the only member of that organisation, with the exception of Major of the Revolution Almeida, who is authorised to wear olive green fatigues, because she is on active duty. He asked her to head that organisation in the province about two and a half years ago, and we let her go, on the condition that she would have to return at some point, and this is the moment. I signed the order today, January 19, so now the brigade leader has three seconds-in-command and one of them must go to the academy soon.

Speaking of Comrade Arrúe, she began with voluntary military service, which is how women join the armed forces. She then passed a course to become head of a company, then of the infantry, then of a battalion, and then of anti-aircraft defence. She went to Angola and headed the anti-aircraft artillery unit in Lubango, formerly Sa Da Bandeira, in south-western Angola. Another female regiment, which was from Havana, went to the new Cahama airport, during the final stages of the offensive against the South Africans.

Subsequently, she gradually increased her level of responsibility, until she led an anti-aircraft artillery regiment of women here in the city of Guantánamo. She then entered the FAR Academy for the regular two-year course and specialised in anti-aircraft defence.

She later went on to the National Defence School in Havana and returned as second head of the political section of an infantry division and now, from the Veterans Association, she is moving on to being second-in-command of the brigade. She is the only reinforcement we have brought here, because there is no tension, but there is a lot of work.

Stop Israel’s War on Palestine

PROTEST

Saturday, January 26, 2002: Assemble 12 noon,

Queen’s Gate, Kensington Gore, London SW7, Opposite the Royal Albert Hall. Tube: South Kensington or High Street Kensington

Rally and March to Israeli Embassy, High Street Kensington, London W8