Visteon: victory or failure?

When the workers at Visteon plants across the UK were sacked back in March without any pension or backpay they didn’t put up with this, but fought back by occupying the factories, finally forcing the company to honour the agreements it had made when it had taken over the factories from Ford. They didn’t get their jobs back, but they did get the redundancy packages they had a right to. The question now is whether this was a victory or a failure when considered in a larger context. At Socialist Democracy, John McAnulty didn’t think so:

Almost 600 jobs were lost at Visteon’s three plants in Belfast, Basildon and Enfield, with staff being given less than an hour’s notice. At the end of a 34-day occupation the job loss stands, as does the loss of pension rights that the workers contributed to. If the union leadership consider this a victory what would defeat look like?

The unions weren’t alone. Sinn Fein, through their cover sheet the Andersonstown News, had front-page headlines proclaiming a victory for ‘Peoples’ Power.’ At an earlier meeting discussing Visteon, Socialist Workers Party spokesperson Eamonn McCann had claimed that there was no such thing as defeat in industrial struggles – to struggle was in itself a form of victory.

[…]

‘Visteon Victory’ means something different to workers. It means that organisations like the UNITE bureaucracy and the Sinn Fein leadership cannot possibly be considered as useful aids in the battle against capitalism and must be removed from the field of play if workers are to have a fighting chance.

At Socialist unity, Andy Newman disagrees:

The recent Visteon strikes are a good example. In an exemplary show of initiative and militancy the workers occupied in Belfast, Enfield and Basildon, which then became the foci of networks of trade union and community solidarity. It was an heroic and inspirational fight, that blew away the cobwebs of inertia that had greeted the closure of Woolworths, and other job losses.

But before we get too carried away with our assesment of the workforces’ bargaining position, let us consider that Visteon were seeking to close the factories, so the occupations were an interruption to cash flow stopping the selling the assets, but were not hitting their production; and secondly that through the use of threats of courts, police and bailiffs, only Belfast was still in occupation at the time a deal was reached.

[…]

Now it is true that the workforce didn’t get their jobs back, and the pensions issue was unresolved. But what were the realistic chances of getting the factories reopened?

To have done so would have needed a political context where there existed pressure on the government to step in. That is not the current political reality, and occupations by relatively small factories in the recession stricken car industry were not going to be able to change that.

On balance I’d say Andy is more right than John. While it is true that union bureaucracy and leadership does often hold back workers’ militancy, in this case the workers were supported by their union and the result was clearly as good as it could be. What John wants to have happened just was not on the cards. There’s this sort of “fantasy football” idea of the socialist revolution where the workers spontaneously rise up, start doing factory occupations and sweeping aside the deadweight of the cowardly union bureaucracy march into the glorious sunrise of the socialist paradise. What John proposes is the Green Lantern theory of revolution, that as long as the workers have enough willpower they can overcome all obstacles. Real life just doesn’t work that way.

Visteon wasn’t a complete victory, but it was an important step towards victory. It showed us that we can fight the bosses and win, even if it didn’t bring the revolution overnight.

Comment of the Day – Canonical Edition

M. John Harrison on building a new fantasy canon:

Lewis Hamilton would be my pick for the World Fantasy Award this year. A well crafted YA fiction, it’s packed full of thrills & spills: the story of how one talented boy’s aspirational dream turns into a nightmare and then back into a dream and then back into a nightmare again and then back into a dream again and then… It lacks the feelgood appeal of Obama! But I think, in the end, it’s more original. After all, Hamilton didn’t steal his shoutline from Bob the Builder, a UK TV series for very young children.

Oh No Lois Bujold No!

There’s a lot of wisdom in the old saws that readers should not meet the writers of their favourite books nor writers respond to criticism, as has been proven once again by what started as an enthusiastic review on the Tor website when Jo Walton shared why she like Patricia Wrede’s Thirteenth Child. The trouble is, Thirteenth Child, as Jo puts it takes place in “an alternate version of our world which is full of magic, and where America (“Columbia”) was discovered empty of people but full of dangerous animals, many of them magical.”

Which may very well be an interesting setup for a story, but quite understandably rubbed quite a few people the wrong way as a story that has magicked away the native inhabitants of America to make way for the happy guilt free adventures of white folk. Patricia Wrede may have used this idea in all innocence, but as a writer in a country that has been founded on the murder of its original inhabitants and which has a long tradition of ignoring and silencing the voices of the survivors, of denying there was a history before the Pilgrim Fathers, that’s not enough. In the end the Thirteenth Child still fits neatly in this tradition of denial and for many people, including myself, this is enough to dismiss it without reading.

As you might expect, once the first few people expressed their discomfort with the premise of this novel, you got the usual debate between them and those who saw little if any problem with it. For many people a story’s just a story and any attempts to “politicise” it is scary or wrong. In short, we got Racefail II: the Quickening. All of which wouldn’t be so bad but then Lois Bujold showed up and well, made a fool of herself…

First she told people to just read the book, then she accused people of wanting “a sermon” as well as having made up their mind. Her next post was the worst though, patting herself on the back for doing something to improve the world while saying her critics just talked. Things went worse from there…

I’m sure Lois Bujold only jumped in to defend a friend from being, as she saw it, unfairly slandered, but unfortunately the way she went about it only confirmed the worst suspicions of people already suspicious of white sf/fantasy writers due to the huge clusterfuck that was Racefail 2009. The discussion about Thirteenth Child isn’t really about the book or its writer, but about a pattern in fantasy and science fiction that excludes people of colour, whether unconsciously or otherwise. To deny or belittle this as Bujold did doesn’t help. So yeah, she didn’t do herself or Wrede much good jumping in and I like her slightly less for it.

Perhaps the most unhelpful suggestion in this discussion was the idea that people need to “read the book” before they can criticise it. I’ll end this post with Bruce Baugh explaining why:

But that makes me quite an outlier in the hardcore of fandom. Boasts about the size of unread-book stacks remain ubiquitous, the subject of amused consideration. And yet people who take a self-deprecating pride in all the books they’re not reading keep insisting that others who decline to read this book here are clearly being cowards and wimps or the slaves of political correctness, because otherwise of course they’d be reading this one and never mind their own tastes and judgments.

I am not impressed. At least not favorably.

The fact is that we do all make our selections, and so nearly as I know nobody actually reads purely and only the works they believe are most meritorious by some general standard. We skip classics for the current fad; we read for comfort, and cheap thrills, and prurient curiosity, and lots of other reasons. And you know, this is all quite okay, because as a species we can’t run in top mental gear all the time. People who are stuck unable to take mental vacations succumb to a variety of physical and psychological impairments, and doing things that make rest (mental as well as physical) impossible is torture.

Michael Martin is a corrupt toadying f*ck

Speaking of foxes in henhouses, what about the chief fox, Michael Martin? Palau already mentioned some of the highlights of his career, but here’s the summation from Wikipedia:

Michael Martin, pompous asshole

On 11 October 2007 Martin was criticised for spending more than £20,000 of taxpayers’ money on lawyers to challenge negative press stories. Media lawyers Carter-Ruck were employed to represent him following articles querying his conduct. Martin was also criticised for the exemption of his wife, Mary, from security checks in the Palace of Westminster, where they live, and for trying to block the publication of details of MPs’ £5m-a-year travel expenses under the Freedom of Information Act.[5]

More controversy followed in February 2008, when press sources reported that Martin used air miles accumulated on official business to fly his children and their families to London in business class. According to guidelines issued by the Members Estimate Committee, which Martin chairs, such air miles should be used by him to offset his own official travel costs.

On 24 February 2008, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, was asked by the TaxPayers’ Alliance to investigate whether Martin had abused parliamentary expenses and allowances. Lyon is obliged to examine all such complaints though the Commissioner could rule that the complaint is unfounded. This followed a week in which Martin’s spokesman, the veteran Whitehall communications chief Mike Granatt, resigned after admitting that he had unwittingly misled the Mail on Sunday over more than £4,000 in taxi expenses incurred by the speaker’s wife, Mary Martin. Granatt blamed unnamed officials, but not the Speaker, for falsely informing him that the expenses were legitimate because Martin’s wife had been accompanied by an official on shopping trips to buy food for receptions. It turned out that she had in fact been accompanied by her housekeeper, and catering for such receptions is the responsibility of the parliamentary caterers.[6]

On 29 March 2008, the Daily Telegraph revealed that refurbishment of Michael Martin’s home has cost the taxpayer £1.7m.[7]

On 19 April 2008, an editorial in the left-leaning Observer newspaper renewed called for his retirement as Speaker, saying:
“A fish rots from the head down and in parliament the precipitous decline in ethics and probity begins with the speaker, Michael Martin. For years, the speaker and Mrs Martin have been plundering the public purse for an almost grotesque array of personal perks and foreign junkets. Only last week, we learnt of new beanos to the Gulf, in the wake of similar trips to Hawaii and the Bahamas.” [2]

No wonder the BBC’s PM programme is reporting him as “visibly angry” and “trembling with suppressed anger” about the leaked MPs’ expenses. Who knows what else this fuckwit has to hide. This after all a man who has built his entire career on toadying and has seen all the perks and benefits as no more than what he deserves. He’s the epitome of New Labour’s sense of entitlement.

Hell freezes over: Daily Mail turns on police

Now here’s a headline and article you never expect to see in the Daily Mail: body in charge of UK policing policy is now an £18m-a-year brand charging the public £70 for a 60p criminal records check.

Normally the Daily Mail is the first to defend the police against the slurs of dangerously longhaired protestors or loony lawyers, but this is more like how it usually deals with socalled “dole scum” or suspciously foreign asylum seekers. The murder of Ian Tomlinson seems to have been a wakeup call and it’s interesting to see how the Mail‘s views on the Tomlinson case developed over time.

Via Alex.