UK
Hundreds of Christians begin 240-hour climate change protest outside Parliament




Christian protesters outside the Houses of Parliament (Jordan Pettitt/PA)

By Piers Mucklejohn, PAToday 

Hundreds of Christian climate activists have begun a 240-hour vigil of protest and prayer outside Parliament in a bid to fight for “climate justice”.

Protesters assembled in front of Carriage Gates, New Palace Yard, on Wednesday – the first of a 10-day occupation which will see activists swap in and out every few hours to ensure a round-the-clock presence.

They said they want “bold climate action” by the Government, including moving away from the use of oil and gas, reparation payments for damage caused by climate change in the Global South, and investment in green policies.

Ruth Jarman, information officer at Green Christian, said: “There’s a massive climate crisis that is putting all of God’s creation at risk and all our children’s futures at risk, in the Global South particularly.

“As Christians, the first thing you do when you have a problem is to pray and that’s what we’re doing.”

Ms Jarman said people of all faiths or none are welcome to participate.

The No Faith in Fossil Fuels Lent Vigil was organised by an alliance of Christian organisations, including Christian Climate Action, Green Christian, the Salvation Army and Christian Aid.

Wednesday was the first day of Lent, the Christian period of reflection and religious observance which lasts for 40 days.

The Bishop of Kingston, Martin Gainsborough, and the Bishop of Reading, Olivia Graham, were at the Westminster demonstration, while environmentalist and Green Christian patron Sir Jonathon Porritt attended an Ash Wednesday church service in Waterloo, which marked the beginning of the vigil.

Christian protesters in Parliament Square (Stefan Rousseau/PA)

David Coleman, a minister in the United Reformed Church and “eco-chaplain”, said the religious element of the protest was important.

He said: “Our scriptures and traditions are a spiritual response to threat, oppression and crisis.

“I think we’re building a sort of spiritual resilience.”

He and Ms Jarman said Labour’s environmental policies are better than the Conservatives’ but are still not enough.

“Doing better than really, really bad is just not good enough when we’re talking about something that is an existential crisis,” Ms Jarman said.

“Nothing is as important as this.”

Protesters can register for hourly slots during the day and seven-hour slots during the night, and will be collecting donations, raising awareness and praying.

 

Death Dust: The Rise, Decline and Future of Radiological Weapons Programs

February 9, 2024

The seminar focuses on the findings of the recently published book “Death Dust: The Rise, Decline and Future of Radiological Weapons Programs” co-authored by William Potter, Sarah Bidgood, Samuel Meyer, and Hanna Notte (Stanford University Press, 2023). Speakers discuss the evolution of radiological weapons, the key incentives for and impediments to their development and deployment, and the future prospects for their proliferation and use.

See also:

• Death Dust: The Rise, Decline, and Future of Radiological Weapons Programs – CISAC Stanford
• Death Dust

Chapters
00:00:00 Introduction by Dr. William Potter, Director, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar Professor of Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
00:14:45 Case Studies: the U.S. and the Soviet Union by Ms. Sarah Bidgood, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
00:27:04 Case Studies: Egypt and Iraq by Dr. Hanna Notte, Director, Eurasia Program, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies
00:37:18 Lessons learned
01:00:24 Q&A

Death Dust

October 22, 2020

Since September 11, 2001, most expert commentary on radiological weapons has focused on nonstate actors, to the neglect of state-level programs. In fact, numerous countries in the past have expressed interest in radiological weapons; a number have actively pursued them; and three tested them on multiple occasions before ultimately deciding not to deploy the weapons. Why is so little known about these false starts, especially outside the United States? Are such weapons more difficult to manufacture than depicted by science-fiction authors and military pundits? Are radiological weapons a thing of the past, or do they remain an attractive option for some countries?

A study published in the journal International Security (Vol. 45, No. 2, Fall 2020) coauthored by Samuel Meyer, Sarah Bidgood, and William C. Potter offers a comparative analysis of these underexplored programs in the United States and Soviet Union and identifies the drivers behind their rise and demise. The findings also illuminate the factors likely to affect the pursuit of radiological weapons by other states in the future. The article proposes steps that might be undertaken to reduce the possibility of their production, deployment and use.

Download the article, “Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of US and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons”

See also:

• Death Dust: The Rise, Decline and Future of Radiological Weapons Programs
• Death Dust: The Rise, Decline, and Future of Radiological Weapons Programs – CISAC Stanford

About the Authors

Samuel Meyer supports the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) grant at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Sam Meyer is responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the Nuclear Threat Initiative’s vast online library of informational profiles of countries, treaties, international organizations, and facilities relevant to WMD and nonproliferation issues. He also prepares interactive tutorials on nonproliferation issues, and maintains databases related to civilian HEU stockpiles, submarine proliferation, and national disarmament efforts. He is the coauthor of the 2016 CNS Global Incidents and Trafficking Report, and works closely with graduate students to hone their research and writing skills. Sam earned his MA in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey (MIIS) in 2016. A US Army veteran, Sam studied Arabic at the Defense Language Institute. Sam is a two-time winner of the TV game show, “Jeopardy!”

Sarah Bidgood is the director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California. Her research focuses on US-Soviet and US-Russia nonproliferation cooperation, as well as the international nonproliferation regime more broadly. She is the co-editor (with William C. Potter) of the book Once and Future Partners: The United States, Russia, and Nuclear Non-Proliferation, which was published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in 2018. She also leads the Young Women in Nonproliferation Initiative at CNS. Her areas of research include US–Soviet and US–Russia nonproliferation cooperation; US-Russia arms control; the Nonproliferation Treaty review process; the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; and gender and diversity in WMD policy. Sarah earned her BA in Russian from Wellesley College. She also holds an MA in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an MA in Nonproliferation and Terrorism Studies from the MIIS.

William C. Potter is the founding director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at MIIS. He is the Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar professor of nonproliferation studies and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He has served as a consultant to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the RAND Corporation, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has been a member of several committees of the National Academy of Sciences, including its Nonproliferation Panel. He served for five years on the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters and the Board of Trustees of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. He has participated as a delegate at every NPT Review Conference and Preparatory Committee meeting since 1995. His areas of research include nuclear terrorism; forecasting proliferation developments; US–Russia relations; the NPT review process; and the nuclear policies of the Non-Aligned Movement. His authored books include Nuclear Politics and the Non-Aligned Movement (2012); The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (2005); Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Options for Control (2000); and Nuclear Profiles of the Soviet Successor States (1993). He has also co-edited numerous volumes, including the recent Preventing Black-Market Trade in Nuclear Technology (2018).

Australia PM backs parliament motion calling for Julian Assange's release

 Julian Assange's supporters demonstrate at Hyde Park, 

Sydney, Australia May 24, 2023. 

REUTERS/Lewis Jackson/File Photo

UPDATED
FEB 15, 2024

SYDNEY - Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese voted in favour of a motion in parliament's lower house calling for the return of WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange to Australia, ahead of a hearing next week at London's High Court on his extradition.

The motion, moved by independent lawmaker Andrew Wilkie, was passed on Wednesday with 86 votes in favour and 42 against after it was supported by the Labor government. Most members of the conservative opposition coalition opposed the motion.

"(The motion) will send a powerful political signal to the British government and to the U.S. government," Wilkie told parliament ahead of the vote.

U.S. officials are looking to extradite Assange from a British prison to the United States, where he is wanted on criminal charges over WikiLeaks' release of vast troves of confidential U.S. military records and diplomatic cables.

Britain has given the go-ahead for his extradition, but Assange, an Australian citizen, has filed a possible final legal challenge to stop it. A public hearing will take place on Feb. 20-21 when two judges will review an earlier ruling that had refused Assange permission to appeal.

Wilkie said he would travel to Britain to attend next week's hearings.

"Whether you worship or loathe Julian Assange, the matter has gone on long enough," Wilkie told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.

Albanese has been urging the U.S. to drop the extradition requests and release Assange and has said he was frustrated for not yet finding a diplomatic fix.

Assange's supporters say he has been victimised because he exposed U.S. wrongdoing and potential crimes, including in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington says the release of the secret documents put lives in danger.

Australia's Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus said Assange's extradition was raised in a meeting with his U.S. counterpart Merrick Garland in Washington last month.

"This was a private discussion, however this government's position on Assange is very clear, and has not changed," Dreyfus said in a statement.

"It is time this matter is brought to an end." 

REUTERS

Retort 'Aufheben'




Gilles Dauvé on anti-fascism, in response to an Aufheben review of "Fascism/Anti-Fascism", by Jean Barrot

Author
Gilles Dauvé

Submitted by westartfromhere on February 14, 2024

Copied to clipboard


Barrot's reply

This letter1 is about your 1992 review of Fascism/Antifascism, a pamphlet published in England twice, and then again by Wildcat, under my pen name Jean Barrot, an alias I got rid of a few years ago. (A new revised version of The Eclipse and Re-Emergence of the Communist Movement, first published by Black & Red, Detroit, 1974, has now been published in London by Antagonism Press under my name 'Gilles Dauvé'.)

Although I'm happy to see Fascism/Anti-fascism available in English, it was never intended to exist in that form. In 1979, I wrote a 90-page preface to a selection of articles from the 'Italian left' magazine Bilan (1933-38) on Spain. Years later, I found that comrades then and now unknown to me had edited a much shorter English version, as of course they were perfectly free to do. But what was meant to be a reflection on communization (analysing Russia and Spain among other historical examples, and actually criticizing Bilan), has been narrowed to an anti-anti-fascist stand. Maybe this is why your article regards my views as both valid and unfortunately one-sided.

I'll try to make myself clearer.

1. Can the proletariat prevent capitalist society from periodically turning into a dictatorship?

No.

Class conflict commands modern times, and centres around working class submission [intransigence] and/or resistance, rebellion, insurrection [combativity]... It does not follow that the workers could divert the political course at any time and avoid the after-effects of their own attempts to change history.

For instance, active class struggle determined the birth and life-span of the Weimar Republic. After World War 1, revolution was stifled in Germany by a combination of democracy and fascism (the Freikorps used by the SPD-led government to crush workers' risings in 1919-20 were real fascist groupings, with many future nazis in their ranks). The Weimar system was built out of proletarian assaults and setbacks. Then the workers had a say, albeit a degraded and mystified one: the councils movement was reduced to a bureaucratic institution, and the revolution that failed gave way to a left-dominated socialist-orientated regime. Working class pressures, and the conflict between a reformist majority and revolutionary minorities, shaped the post-war period. Even when right-of-centre politicians were in office, even with Hindenburg as president (the SPD called to vote for him in 1932 as a bulwark against Hitler...), workers remained the pivotal force of Weimar's early days, and often its decisive factor.

But the combined and rival weights of SPD and KPD made their own weaknesses. With the 1929 crash, when even the ruling class had to be disciplined, this time capital found that not just radicals but also respectful union leaders could be a burden. The bourgeois-reformist compromise set in motion by the workers 14 years before became more a hindrance than a help.

Hitlerism was not inevitable, with its grotesque and murderous paraphernalia. But on January 30th, 1933, some strong central power was the order of the day, and the only options left to Germany were straightforwardly statist and repressive ones, to be settled out of proletarian reach.

Paradoxically, it's the sheer strength of wage-labour (reformist and radical) that deprives it now and again of any say in the running of affairs.

2. How far can anti-fascism contribute to a revolutionary movement?

Of course, anti-fascism is not a homogeneous phenomenon. Durruti, Orwell and Santiago Carrillo all qualify as antifascists. But the question remains: What is anti-fascism 'anti'? And what is it 'pro' exactly?

I am against imperialism, be it French, British, US or Chinese. I am not an 'anti-imperialist', since that is a political position supporting national liberation movements opposed to imperialist powers. I am (and so is the proletariat) against fascism, be it in the form of Hitler or Le Pen. I am not an 'anti-fascist', since this is a political position regarding fascist state or threat as a first and foremost enemy to be destroyed at all costs, i.e. siding with bourgeois democrats as a lesser evil, and postponing revolution until fascism is disposed of.

Such is the essence of anti-fascism. 'Revolutionary antifascism' is a contradiction in terms—and in reality—anything communist inevitably goes beyond the boundary of antifascism, and sooner or later clashes with it.

When Spanish workers took arms against the military putsch in July '36, they were obviously fighting fascism, but (whatever they may have called themselves) they were not acting as anti-fascists, as their move aimed both at the fascists and the democratic state. Afterwards, however, when they let themselves be trapped within the institutional framework, they became 'anti-fascists', fighting their fascist foes while at the same time supporting their own democratic enemies.

Revolutionary critics of anti-fascism have been repeatedly accused of sabotaging the fight against fascism, of being Franco's or Hitler's 'objective' allies—which soon comes close to 'subjective'... The sad irony is, only the proletariat and communists are fundamental opponents of fascism.

Anti-fascism is always more supportive of democracy than opposed to fascism: it won't take anti-capitalist steps to repel fascism, and will prefer its own defeat rather than risk proletarian outbursts. It was no accident or mistake that the Spanish bourgeoisie and the Stalinists wasted time and energy getting rid of anarchist peasant communes when they were supposed to do everything to win the war: their number one priority was not and had never been to smash Franco, but to keep the masses under control.

So the point is, not that there are lots of ways of being an anti-fascist, and that non-revolutionary anti-fascist individuals can turn revolutionary, as of course many will, but that anti-fascism as such, in order to avoid a dictatorial state, submits to the democratic state. That's its nature, its logic, its proven past, and all the 'yes buts' about it got drowned in the Barcelona May '37 blood of those workers who'd hoped to outsmart moderate anti-fascism. Anti-fascism is not like a meeting one bursts into and forces to adopt a new programme. It's not a form: it has a content and a political substance of its own. It's not a 'bourgeois' shell wherein subversion could put proletarian flesh.

Needless to say, I am not suggesting die-hard communists should only take part in 'pure' anti-wage-labour attacks and keep clear of all anti-fascist groups [we are, it only adds to false polarity, infighting, enmity within the class], waiting for them to catch up with us. No doubt the rejection of everything fascism stands for (ethnicism, racism, sexism, nationalism, law and order, outright reactionary culture, etc.) is often a first step to rebellion. In fact, quite a few young wo/men take part in demos against the French National Front because they realize it asks for even more submission to a social order they hate, not so much because it is a threat to a parliamentary democracy they don't care about all that much. Then politics comes along trying to channel this into a support for democracy. These spontaneous gestures will develop into a critique of the roots of this world if they reject the basis of anti-fascism: a respect for democratic capitalism. Only by pointing out the issues at stake can we contribute to this maturation.

Beating off fascism means destroying its pre-conditions, i.e. its social causes = capitalism.

3. How can we defeat one of the worst divisive forces within proletarians: racism?

Certainly not by treating racism as another issue to be added to anti-capitalism.

Racism stresses a difference. Anti-racism does the opposite: it emphasizes something in common between those that racism divides. This common element is usually humankind or humanity. Now, when a bourgeoisie also appeals to that in relation to his workers, what will revolutionaries object? Obviously this common factor can't be the same for those who manage this world and those who'd like to change it.

Actually, what we often tend to do is replace 'We're all humans' by 'We're all proles'. We say: (a) a black worker is the same as a white worker [we say 'black' and 'white' are fiction, why reify fiction?], (b) both aren't the same as a black boss or a white boss. The snag is, this does not attack racism; it supports solidarity, as indeed we must, but solidarity is precisely what's lacking because of racism. So we're just substituting a proletarian anti-racism for a humanist one. Yet both contend with racism in its visible form and miss its causes.

In '68, though there were racists around, including among wage-earners, the French bourgeoisie could not use racism as a major dividing weapon, because of the unifying effect of mass class struggle. Later, as workers' militancy subsided, divisions appeared. To mention just one important landmark, the Talbot 1983 strike revealed a growing split between so-called national and foreign car-workers. Such a rift was more a result than a cause. Is it mere coincidence that 1983-4 also witnessed the rise of the National Front? It's not the lack of adequate anti-racist campaigns that helped Le Pen ['Le penis de Le Pen a peine il', Saïd] get now as much as 15 per cent of the votes. It's the decline of collective resistance among the workers. Racism manifests itself as an ideology, but is not first ideological. It's a practical phenomenon, a social relation: one of the most vicious aspects of competition between wage-labourers, a consequence of the decay of living and fighting communities. The 'racialization' of the working class goes along with its atomization.

The proletariat is not weak because it's divided: its weaknesses breed division. So anything that makes it stronger strikes a blow at racism. While avoiding organized humanistic anti-racism, one can combat racism when one comes across it in real life, as many non-racist proles spontaneously do in a pub, on the shopfloor or in a picket line, recreating some form of autonomous community. For example, the December '95 movement silenced Le Pen's rhetoric. Likewise, a number of estate riots have brought together people from north Africa, black and 'white' origins.

The communist movement has both a class and a human content. An interesting question is: which class struggle activity gets proletarians together, and practically tends to do away with racism?

Workers can be militant and racist at the same time.

In 1922, South African bosses lowered white miners' wages and opened a number of jobs to blacks. 'White' riots ended in a blood-bath: over 200 miners killed. As in strikes against female or foreign labour, this was wage-earners' self-defence at its worst.

On the other hand, while Holland was occupied by nazi Germany, Dutch workers went on strike against the way Jews and Jewish workers were being deported and discriminated against. The key to South African labour's reactionary stand, or to Dutch solidarity, does not lie in racist/non-racist minds. Minds are moulded by past and present social relationships and actions. The more open, global, potentially universal and therefore 'human' a demand or an action is, the least likely it is to be narrowed to sexist, xenophobic or racist lines.

Imagine a workplace. Fighting to save jobs could more easily bring the workforce closer to racism than, say, asking for a flat £20 per week increase for every single employee on the premises. The former encloses people within defensive gestures, confines them to 'their' plant, isolates them from other workplaces and eventually divides them, between themselves (Who'll get the sack? My work-mate, I hope, not me!) However small, the latter demand unites proles irrespective of gender, nationality or professional skill, and can link them with workplaces outside their own, since many other people can take it up and start asking for the same increase, or for something that's even more unifying.

Some claims and tactics reinforce trade, local or 'race' differences. Others involve the interplay of an ever larger community, open up new issues, and break 'ethnic', etc. divisions.

The only way to defeat racism is to address it on a general and 'political' level, showing how any division between proles (and racism even more viciously than xenophobia) always ends in them (all proles) being worse off, more degraded, more submissive.

Racism is to be addressed, not as a separate question, and never as an obnoxious ideology to be smashed by a warm-hearted one.

Gilles Dauvé, 1997

Footnotes: Our additions in square brackets, Proletarian Revolution; see, Anti-Semite and Jew, by Jean-Paul Sartre

Source to adage: Saïd, La Haine

‘This is Rishi Sunak’s recession’: How the left reacted to news the UK has entered recession

Basit Mahmood 

Yesterday
Left Foot Forward News

With yet another major pledge broken in an election year, here’s how some of the voices on the left reacted to the news.

The UK has once more entered recession, despite Rishi Sunak’s repeated claims that the economy had ‘turned a corner’. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics are a major blow to Sunak’s authority, given that he had promised to ‘grow the economy’ as one of his five key pledges to voters when he took office.

With yet another major pledge broken in an election year, here’s how some of the voices on the left reacted to the news.

The Trades Union Congress slammed years of ‘Tory stagnation’. Responding to today’s GDP figures, showing GDP fell by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2023, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “The UK economy is in dire straits. After years of Tory stagnation, we are now in technical recession.

“The Conservatives’ economic failures are hitting jobs and living standards. With household budgets at breaking point, spending is down and the economy is shrinking. At the same time our crumbling public services are starved of much-needed funding.

“After being in power for 14 years, the Tories have driven our economy into a ditch and have no idea how to get out.

“It’s time for a government with a serious long-term plan and strategy for renewal, to revive our economy and sustain growth into future.”

Labour’s Darren Jones, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told Times Radio: “The fact we are now in recession shows that his plan has failed and the Conservative Party has run out of ideas for turning it around.”

Jones went on to add that GDP per head has been declining quarter on quarter across the whole of the last year, highlighting how the public has endured the largest reduction in real living standards since the 1950s.

LFF columnist Prem Sikka blamed the Tory government for the recession. He posted on X: “UK economy fell into recession at the end of last yr. Crisis made by the Govt – Real wage cuts, high rents & interest rates; no curbs on profiteering; soaring cost-of-living.

“Govt doing more of the same, enriching a few. Must redistribute income/wealth.”

The New Economics Foundation posted on X: “It’s no surprise the UK fell into a recession at the end of last year given this government’s long standing mismanagement of the economy and the Bank of England’s panicked interest rate rises.

“This government’s longstanding failure to invest means that the UK will struggle to rebound. For ordinary people this means low wages, falling standards of living and crumbling public services.

“We need the government to seriously increase investment in green industries, public services, housing and skills to boost our productivity and secure the increase in living standards we deserve.”

Journalist and commentator Paul Mason posted on X: “The UK is in recession – it’s official. Nothing “technical” about it: it’s induced by a clueless government and a bunch of free-market loons at the Bank of England. Only Labour has a plan for growth…”

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, said: “Rishi Sunak’s promise to grow the economy is now in tatters. The prime minister can no longer credibly claim that his plan is working or that he has turned the corner on more than 14 years of economic decline under the Conservatives that has left Britain worse off.

“This is Rishi Sunak’s recession, and the news will be deeply worrying for families and business across Britain.”


Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward

UK

How we get rid of the Tories’ anti-union legislation – Sarah Woolley, BFAWU

14th February 2024

Labour Outlook
Amplifying socialist voices, supporting frontline struggles, building international solidarity.

“The Strikes Act 2023 is the latest in a long line of anti-union laws, which has culminated in Britain having some of the most restrictive trade union legislation in Western Europe.”Sarah Woolley, BFAWU General Secretary

This article is an adapted version of the speech given by BFAWU General Secretary Sarah Woolley at the Morning Star Conference – ‘Fightback: 40 Years on from the Miners’

Back in December, the Trades Union Congress (TUC) called a special conference to discuss the movements’ response to the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 (MSL). This included possible actions a united movement could take to undermine the legislation and make its implementation impossible in practice.

There will be a need to build coalitions across the wider labour movement, progressive campaigners, and community activists to ensure that we pressure as many local authorities as possible, through directly elected mayors and councillors, to reject issuing work notices and to speak out against this piece of legislation as Sheffield City Council already has.

In an effort to assist such a campaign, CTUF is proposing to work alongside Strike Map, which itself is partnered with the GFTU of which I am the president of for the next 12 months, in an initiative to Defend the Right to Strike.

The aim will be to use the power of our unions to encourage local councils and other employers to join with the Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly and others in refusing to implement work notices – a key TUC strategy in undermining the legislation.

The aims of the strategy are to utilise the strength of the union movement to build a group of employers/local authorities that refuse to implement work notices as part of undermining the implementation of the Minimum Services Level legislation.

To unite allies in our communities, Westminster and elsewhere to call for the MSL to be scrapped and employers not to implement work notices.

To use this mass campaign as a springboard to demand the repeal of this legislation but we can’t stop there we want the scrappage of all other anti-union laws too.

Friends, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is the latest in a long line of anti-union laws, which has culminated in Britain having some of the most restrictive trade union legislation in Western Europe. This latest attack redefines the relationship between unions, employers, and union members to such an extent that unions are coerced into working with employers to define who can and cannot take strike action. Worse, if union members do not comply with these work notices they risk dismissal without unfair dismissal protections and the Unions involved risk fines and sequestration of assets.

The current legislation identifies six areas of the economy that will be impacted including health, fire and rescue, education, rail transport and border services, together with aspects of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste. However, it is widely feared that the legislation could be extended to include other groups of workers. The current legislation, known as a ‘skeleton’ act of parliament, due to its small size, will largely miss parliamentary scrutiny, with control left in the hands of the Secretary of State – whoever that may be from one week to the next.

However, under the legislation as currently drafted, there is no legal duty on employers to produce work notices. This provides employers with a degree of discretion and the trade union movement with a huge opportunity to build its strategy of non-compliance with the legislation.

Already, both the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly have been clear they both oppose the legislation and will not look to comply with it. This demand to not implement the legislation has growing momentum, with both Sheffield City Council and metro mayors publicly stating they will not comply.

This is an opportunity for us to build a mass movement of trades unions, campaign groups and community activists to target employers, directly elected mayors and political leaders to not comply with this legislation and build pressure on any future Government to repeal this and all other anti-union laws of the last forty years, we need more than words and marches, we need deeds and action now.

This campaign will use the now-established and successful “mapping” tools developed by StrikeMap, if you haven’t had a look at their map, I would encourage you to do so, to engage trade union members and our communities in building a mass movement to make MSLs unworkable.

Developing this level of non-compliance and a wider understanding of the UK’s restrictive trade union laws can help generate an opportunity to build pressure on any incoming Government whatever colour it may be to repeal this and previous anti-union laws. The only way to do this though is by standing together across our movement, with our allies in community organisations and push back against this and all anti-union legislation.

Sarah Woolley is the General Secretary of the Bakers Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU). You can follow her on Twitter/X; and follow the BFAWU on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.

Sarah Woolley is speaking at the Arise Festival Dayschool this Saturday (February 17th) in Central London: A World to Win – Socialist Solutions to the Crisis. Register your place and find out more here.
If you support Labour Outlook’s work amplifying the voices of left movements and struggles here and internationally, please consider becoming a supporter on Patreon.

'Fighting back' trade unionism on rise in US

“A record 61 percent of the US population believe unions help rather than hurt the economy, and 43 percent want unions to gain more power.”

14th February 2024

Fraser McGuire writes on how the United Auto Workers union is seeing major growth as the US labour movement reaches a turning point.

The past six months have seen an explosion in membership growth for the US United Auto Workers (UAW) labour union, in the face of anti-union strategies by major employers and hostile legislation that historically has stifled much of the North American labour movement, and it is important that trade unionists in the UK should carefully observe the successes of the UAW. In November the UAW, which currently has more than 400,000 active members and more than 580,000 retired members, announced plans to target recruitment in non-union manufacturing plants, including those run by Tesla, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and Toyota.

In 2023 the union saw massive successes with recognition agreements leading to more than 6000 workers winning recognition across New England, New York, and Puerto Rico alone.

Shawn Fain, the President of the UAW since March 2023, is seen as a hardliner by the US billionaire ruling class, described as “confrontational” by the New York Times, and a “weapon of mass destruction” by former President Donald Trump. Since his election, Fain hasn’t shied away from engaging in bold and radical rhetoric since his election- unafraid to attack “the economy that only works for the billionaire class and not the working class”. In the past year the UAW has shifted to a daring strategy of proactively pushing resources and energy into organising non-union plants – breaking trends and seeing major growth in membership.

All trade unions should take note of the successes the UAW has achieved as a ‘fighting back’ union, unafraid to take risks and go on the offensive to recruit new members in unionised workplaces. A failure to adapt to increasingly hostile legislation and the shifting economic geography of the 21st century will see some unions become nothing more than guardians of a managed decline in membership, unless they realise that union movement can only succeed when it is proactive, not reactive. The UAW strategy is paying off, with membership reaching 50 percent at Volkswagen’s currently non-union Tennessee assembly factory just 60 days after the campaign began, as well as non-union Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz plants hitting 30 percent density in Alabama.

The Tennessee factory is Volkswagen’s only US plant, with more than 4000 workers on site. The rapid growth in union membership shows a clear dissatisfaction with working conditions in the plant. It also flags the effective strategies employed by grassroots union activists, who understand that it is necessary to take radical stances and make the arguments for building collective power for the workers upon whom the US car industry relies. More than 350 workers at the plant have signed up in the last two weeks, and the UAW says it will push for recognition once 70 percent of the workforce has signed a union card. Volkswagen’s profits have increased by over 60 percent in the past three years, and their vehicle prices have soared by more than 40 percent, and while many workers struggle, company executives have raked in tens of millions of dollars in salaries and bonuses.

As well as adopting an unapologetic strategy involving proactively building the union and expanding the membership, the UAW has also seen an increase in accountability in its internal structures and greater transparency around the union’s bargaining process, making it easier for rank-and-file members to organise.

The past two years have seen significant growth and key victories for US trade unions- with unions such as the UAW, Amazon Labour Union, and Starbucks Workers United going on the offensive, taking the fight to the bosses, and standing up for the working class. Starbucks Workers United have organised more than 350 stores and reached over 9000 members, demonstrating the resolve of precarious workers fighting for better treatment and conditions in the face of vile anti-union policies. Similarly, UK trade unions which have focused on organising workers in non-union workplaces and under-unionised sectors have seen a spike in growth, while fighting-back unions like ASLEF, the RMT and Unite have seen major wins in pay and conditions, with Unite seeing an 81 percent win rate since 2021, and more than 400 million won for workers in pay disputes with some members seeing pay increases of more than 30 percent.

Championing the causes of equality and liberation, climate justice, peace and international solidarity as well as being willing to tackle the government and bad employers marks out the unions leading the way in both the US and UK. The unions who have taken unapologetic stances opposing Israel’s brutal assault with Gaza and standing with the Palestinian cause exemplify the necessity of being consistent on solidarity- there is no genuine solidarity without internationalism and the struggle for peace.

Wide coverage of strikes in 2023, such as those taken by SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and the Writers Guild of America, have helped boost public awareness of union activity and encouraged more workers to join. A record 61 percent of the US population believe unions help rather than hurt the economy, and 43 percent want unions to gain more power.

It is clear that the US is approaching a turning point in worker organisation as the façade of neoliberalism crumbles, and trade unionists and socialists in the UK should take serious note and learn from the successes and strategies of unions leading the way for the US labour movement. 

Thousands of US, UK Delivery, Ride-Hailing Drivers Stop Work on Valentine's Day

February 14, 2024 
By Associated Press

A passer-by walks past a sign offering directions to an Uber and Lyft ride pickup location at Logan International Airport, in Boston

Thousands of ride-hailing and delivery workers in the U.S. and the U.K. went on strike on Valentine's Day, calling for higher pay and other changes to their working conditions.

In the U.S., Uber and Lyft drivers planned daylong strikes in Chicago; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Miami; Orlando and Tampa, Florida; Hartford, Connecticut; Newark, New Jersey; Austin, Texas; and Providence, Rhode Island. Drivers were also holding midday demonstrations at airports in those cities, according to Justice for App Workers, the group organizing the effort.

Meanwhile, U.K. delivery drivers for Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Just Eat and Stuart said they would turn off their apps and refuse deliveries between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. The group Delivery Job U.K., which called for the walkout, said on Instagram that the strike was "a crucial opportunity to be seen and heard by society."

Of eight delivery drivers who spoke with The Associated Press on the streets of London Wednesday, all but one said they planned to halt work at 5 p.m. Several, however, questioned whether the strike was long enough to make enough of a financial dent in the businesses.

"One day is not effective," said Evadur Rahman. "If we strike more than one day — two, three, four days — they're gonna be affected."

Rahman, a Deliveroo driver who planned to participate in the strike, said his daily pay dropped in recent months from about 140 pounds ($175) for eight hours of work to around 100 pounds ($126). He said he wanted the company to raise the minimum rate it pays per order from 2.90 pounds ($3.64) to closer to 5 pounds ($6.28).

"They must improve the minimum pay," Rahman said. "It's not enough for survival in this country."

Delivery Job U.K. said 3,000 people planned to strike, but it was unclear how many U.S. drivers would be participating. Uber said Tuesday that based on past walkouts, it didn't expect the strike to have much impact on its operations.

"These types of events have rarely had any impact on trips, prices or driver availability," Uber said in a statement. "That's because the vast majority of drivers are satisfied."

Uber and other companies that rely on self-employed gig workers say those workers appreciate the flexibility of the job. But many gig workers are pushing to unionize, saying that would give them the ability to bargain over compensation, safety measures and other benefits.

In November, that unionization effort saw a setback in the U.K., when Britain's top court ruled that Deliveroo couriers don't have collective bargaining rights because they aren't considered employees.

Deliveroo said Wednesday that it has a voluntary partnership with a union that includes annual discussions on pay and it also provides couriers with free insurance and sick pay.

"Rider retention rates are high and the overwhelming majority of riders tell us that they are satisfied working with us," the company said in a statement.

Rachel Gumpert described ride-hailing as a "mobile sweatshop," with some workers routinely putting in 60 to 80 hours per week. Justice for App Workers, which says it represents 130,000 ride-hailing and delivery workers, is seeking higher wages, access to health care and an appeals process so companies can't deactivate drivers without warning.

But ride-hailing companies say they already pay a fair wage and have an appeals process in place for deactivations.

Earlier this month, Lyft said it began guaranteeing that drivers will make at least 70% of their fares each week, and it lays out its fees more clearly for drivers in a new earnings statement. Lyft also unveiled a new in-app button that lets drivers appeal deactivation decisions.

"We are constantly working to improve the driver experience," Lyft said in a statement. Lyft said its U.S. drivers make an average of $30.68 per hour, or $23.46 per hour after expenses.

Uber said its U.S. drivers make an average of $33 per hour. The company also said it allows drivers to dispute deactivations.

I deliver food to your door, but not this Valentine’s Day. Here’s why we are on strike in the UK

Food delivery drivers work long hours in gruelling conditions for very little pay from firms such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats. We are walking out because we are desperate

Anonymous
Wed 14 Feb 2024 

Today, on Valentine’s Day, delivery riders working for platforms such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats will be on strike, demanding higher wages. It will probably be the largest platform worker strike ever seen in the UK. I’m one of the organisers.

I live in south London. I spend most of the day on the road. I ride 80 miles a day on my moped over the course of nine to 10 hours, and usually make less than the minimum wage after costs. Because I’m self-employed, I have no guaranteed basic pay. Instead, I get variable fees for each delivery based on distance and other factors.

Adjusted for inflation, our earnings have been going down for years. A recent report looked at pay in the sector and found the vast majority of platforms couldn’t provide evidence that workers’ gross pay was at least the minimum wage after costs. I try to do three orders an hour and average about £10 before costs. Sometimes I make less, more like £7. Other riders who are less experienced or don’t have accounts with all the apps that I do make even less.

My costs are quite low. I own my moped outright, and I don’t have to pay someone else to lend me their login (a practice known as renting an account). Even so, I have to spend about £3 on petrol, insurance, maintenance and other costs for every hour I work. So if my account says I’m making £10 an hour, I’m actually making £7. I have to make nearly £14 just to earn the equivalent of the minimum wage. It’s rare that I make that much nowadays.

I work six days a week. On a normal day, I get up at 6.30am and have a coffee and a cigarette before hitting the road. I work all the peak hours: from 7am to 10am, noon to 3pm, and 5pm to 9pm. I get so exhausted that I have to go home for a nap between lunch and dinner. The apps talk about flexibility, but there’s no flexibility at all: you have to work the peak hours, or you don’t make anywhere near enough money.

Falling wages are making all our lives harder. In my local mechanics’ garage, they have a list on the wall of all the riders who owe them money. It used to just be one or two, but now all the regulars are on it. We are all scared of getting a big repair bill. My food bill keeps going up and up. I’m getting less healthy because I’m totally reliant on processed frozen food.

Work makes me anxious. There are lots of things that add to the stress. The only way to make more money is to ride faster, which means taking more risks. You can get an extra few pounds an hour if you’re willing to risk your life. I’ve been in situations where I’ve skidded and only just avoided crashing.

In other jobs I’ve had, if you worked hard you would be all right. But when you’re a rider, you have to be lucky, too: lucky to avoid being hit by a car, lucky to avoid being robbed, lucky to avoid being made to wait for orders. So far, I have been lucky. But the thing with luck is that it doesn’t last for ever.

I came to the UK thinking that this was one of the richest countries in the world. But things are always getting worse – I work more and more hours for less money. I have ended up asking myself if this was the right decision.

The lives of other riders are even harder than mine. Much of the workforce is undocumented. They rent accounts from other people, but they don’t have the right papers to get another job. That means they can’t find other work, no matter how bad the pay gets. Often they rent everything they need from one person: a mattress on the floor of an overcrowded house, a moped and a delivery account. They always have to stay alert to avoid immigration raids and police checks. They are living in poverty, but nobody seems to care.

Deliveroo has said that, “Thousands of people apply to work with Deliveroo each month, rider retention rates are high and the overwhelming majority of riders tell us that they are satisfied working with us.” Uber Eats has said: “We offer a flexible way for couriers to earn by using the app when and where they choose. We know that the vast majority of couriers are satisfied with their experience on the app.”

But we can’t go on like this. We’ve had enough. That’s why we started organising this strike. Thousands of us across more than 90 areas went on strike on 2 February, and we’re going to do it again today. Some might point out that Deliveroo riders have a union: the GMB signed a “partnership” deal with the platform in 2022, and calls itself “the union for riders”. But we are fighting for ourselves. Customers who want to support us should do a one-day boycott of the apps on Valentine’s Day, and join us when we protest in the streets.

The author is a food courier in south London and an organiser with Delivery Job UK. As told to Callum Cant

Food couriers strike 14 February

Submitted by cathy n on 13 February, 2024 -Author: Michael Elms

WORKERS LIBERTY



On 14 February food delivery couriers are set to strike over pay. The strike is not being organised by a union but by a social media-based group called Delivery Job UK, and it mostly involves couriers working for Deliveroo and Stuart. Some couriers working for other apps are also involved. A strike also took place on 2 February.

The 2 February action saw thousands of couriers, mostly in London, but also in cities across the UK, stopping deliveries. The delivery apps tried to break the strike by offering astronomical fees to those riders who did accept orders. Patchy picketing and protest motorcades around strike hotspots were able to reduce the impact of scabbing and shore up the strike.

The riders are right to strike. Pay for food couriers has been falling since the pandemic. Pay is opaque — an algorithm decides the rate for each job with little or no explanation given. Many couriers work brutally long weeks just to cover their costs and make something like minimum wage on top. 50-hour weeks are not uncommon, and many work even longer hours than that.

Delivery Job UK appears to be the creation of a group of mostly-Brazilian couriers working in the UK. They have built up a large following among other couriers on social media and over WhatsApp. The internal workings of the group are not clear. Evidently a group of riders have set themselves up as a leadership for a large section of the delivery workforce. Good for them! But the leadership of the strike needs to join up with the broader trade union movement by engaging with the IWGB union, which is the main trade union organising couriers in the UK currently. The IWGB, likewise, needs to activate itself in order to meet the demands of the hour.

There is a pattern in courier organising in the UK that friendship groups of well-known riders create a kind of executive committee in a given area, and organise a strike when pay is particularly bad. But these networks often lack experience in organising strikes, and they are generally disconnected from the wider socialist and workers’ movements. For these reasons, spontaneous couriers’ strikes tend to fall apart quickly. The opacity and lack of formal democracy in the leading friendship group often makes it hard to turn over new leaders when the initial organisers burn out or move on. What is happening now appears to be a bigger, more serious version of this long-standing pattern, with all of its problems as well as its strengths. A widespread belief among some couriers that trade unions are scams (often connected to migrant workers’ experiences of corrupt labour organisations in other countries, sometimes to do with experience of unions in Britain) does not help.

Socialists around the UK — not just staff or members of the IWGB — need to connect with this round of couriers’ strikes and offer our assistance and our organising experience to help couriers form a strong, durable organisation that can win.

Valentine’s Day strike misery for UK lovers

By AFP
February 13, 2024

Delivery riders and drivers are striking for better pay in Britain 

- Copyright AFP Ludovic MARIN

Britain’s couples could struggle for Valentine’s Day gifts and meals after Amazon staff went on strike over pay Tuesday — and will soon be joined by takeaway delivery drivers, organisers said.

Disheartened workers for food apps including Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat will walk out on Wednesday.

Instagram account Delivery Jobs UK, grouping together some of the sector’s workforce, has urged meal and shopping platform couriers to strike on February 14 between 1700 GMT and 2200 GMT.

That is when the appetite for speedily-delivered Valentine’s Day evening meals is expected to surge across Britain — for those who don’t want to cook.

The GMB trade union has called a three-day strike this week at Amazon’s giant warehouse facility in Coventry, central England, spanning from Tuesday to Thursday.

This week’s walkouts come amid broader UK industrial unrest as workers’ pay fails to keep pace with elevated prices, with the latest inflation data due Wednesday.

Ulisses, a Brazilian courier who declined to give his surname for fear of reprisals, is one of the organisers of Delivery Jobs UK, which hosts 4,000 mainly foreign workers who are mostly Brazilian.

“The choice of Valentine’s Day for the strike is strategic, aimed at maximising visibility and impact,” Ulisses told AFP in an interview.

“Valentine’s Day is one of the busiest days for delivery services, with a high demand for meal deliveries.”

Wednesday’s strike also coincides with the publication of the latest official UK inflation data for January.

Couriers are demanding fair treatment for their “critical role”, particularly after they helped feed the nation during Covid pandemic lockdowns.

“By striking on this day, we aim to highlight the critical role delivery workers play in the economy and the importance of fair compensation and working conditions,” added Ulisses.

“This action is a call to both the companies and the public to recognise and address the unsustainable earnings that have become all too common in the delivery industry.”

Delivery Jobs UK’s membership also comprises UK-based delivery staff from other nations including Albania, Nigeria and Romania.