Some 20,000 prison officers in England and Wales took illegal unofficial action on Wednesday 29 August against Gordon Brown’s public sector wage cuts and the disastrous overcrowding in prisons.
Some 20,000 prison officers in England and Wales took illegal unofficial action on Wednesday 29 August against Gordon Brown’s public sector wage cuts and the disastrous overcrowding in prisons.
Some 20,000 prison officers in England and Wales took illegal unofficial action on Wednesday 29 August against Gordon Brown’s public sector wage cuts and the disastrous overcrowding in prisons.
Brown’s initial response was to turn to the anti-union laws and get an injunction against the strikers. In response to a question about the prison officers’ action, he restated that public sector pay must be held down as an “essential part” of tackling inflation.
However the action has forced Jack Straw and Gordon Brown to the negotiating table. Straw is to hold emergency talks with the Prison Officers Association (POA) on Friday.
Colin Moses, chair of the POA, said, “The POA executive has decided in the light of the offer of meaningful discussions regarding the staging of pay, to lead our members back to work, irrespective of the threat of an injunction”.
Brian Caton, general secretary of the POA, disputed that the action was illegal. “I believe every officer has human rights, and they include the right to withdraw their labour,” he said.
Prison officers were banned from striking by a court ruling in early 1993, which found prison officers had powers and authority similar to those of the police and subsequently could not strike. That was written into law by the Tories in the 1994 Criminal Justice Act.
The New Labour government promised to repeal a ban on strike action among prison officers. It did this – only to sign a voluntary no-strike agreement with the POA in 2001.
Wednesday's strike came after a pay review body recommended a rise of 2.5 percent this year but the government decided that it should be staged, with an initial 1.5 percent rise followed by another 1 percent six months later. Overall, this kept the prison officers’ pay rise under Brown’s 2 percent public sector pay limit.
Prison officers currently start on a salary of about £17,500, going up to about £25,000 over ten years.
Brian Clarke, chair of Birmingham POA, told Socialist Worker, “Our pay awards are meant to be according to performance. There is a growth in prison population but not in prison staff, so our performance is increasing.
“Prison managers have received increases of £4,000 per year. That pisses me off. When they tried to serve an injunction on me this morning, I refused to take it.”
Every trade unionist should oppose the use of anti-union laws and welcome any assault on Brown’s pay freeze.
However, there are contradictions in the role of prison officers.
It is summed up by Cardiff prisoners chanting “you’re breaking the law” to the strikers.
Prison officers should have the right to strike and to a union and it is noticeable that the first response of Labour to industrial action was to head to the courts.
Getting relatively low pay for doing the system’s dirty work gives prison officers a collective identity and means they see themselves as workers.
But it should be remembered that the victims of the prison system are the 80,000 prisoners rather than the prison officers.
Those locked up in prisons are mostly poor and disproportionately black. Increasing numbers of prisoners suffer mental health and addiction problems.
Prison officers’ work, upholding law and order, frequently pushes them to accept the most right wing ideas and actions of the system. One of their main jobs is to control prisoners – and throughout the prison system, many officers have a proven record of racism and violence.
Some of the contradictions can be seen in the strike. In Liverpool the POA shop steward Steve Baines responded to the high court injunction by telling fellow strikers, “Tell them to shove it up their arse, we’re sitting it out.”
Yet when prisoners in the jail protested against their treatment, the POA members rushed back in to control the situation and end a roof top protest.
That one prisoner died locked in his cell in Acklington prison in Northumberland during the dispute should also be a reminder of the harsh reality of life in prisons.
Simon Basketter in Socialist Worker argued that the POA should be looking for fewer prisoners and better conditions in prisons as part of the their demands.
Traditionally prison officers – like their colleagues in the police – have been accommodated at the first sign of trouble. This is the POA’s first strike in 68 years. It is noticeable therefore that Brown’s commitment to neoliberalism means he is currently more interested in maintaining the public sector pay limit than keeping the POA onside.
The strike will have focused minds – as every strike does. The government quickly offered talks to head off the action.
There is a clear lesson for other workers here. If prison officers can take unofficial illegal strike action over Brown’s cuts and force concessions from New Labour ministers, surely other public sector unions must be able to do the same.
The prison officers’ strike is another sign of the crisis facing New Labour and another argument for workers pushing hard for action against Brown.
Some 20,000 prison officers in England and Wales took illegal unofficial action on Wednesday 29 August against Gordon Brown’s public sector wage cuts and the disastrous overcrowding in prisons.
Brown’s initial response was to turn to the anti-union laws and get an injunction against the strikers. In response to a question about the prison officers’ action, he restated that public sector pay must be held down as an “essential part” of tackling inflation.
However the action has forced Jack Straw and Gordon Brown to the negotiating table. Straw is to hold emergency talks with the Prison Officers Association (POA) on Friday.
Colin Moses, chair of the POA, said, “The POA executive has decided in the light of the offer of meaningful discussions regarding the staging of pay, to lead our members back to work, irrespective of the threat of an injunction”.
Brian Caton, general secretary of the POA, disputed that the action was illegal. “I believe every officer has human rights, and they include the right to withdraw their labour,” he said.
Prison officers were banned from striking by a court ruling in early 1993, which found prison officers had powers and authority similar to those of the police and subsequently could not strike. That was written into law by the Tories in the 1994 Criminal Justice Act.
The New Labour government promised to repeal a ban on strike action among prison officers. It did this – only to sign a voluntary no-strike agreement with the POA in 2001.
Wednesday's strike came after a pay review body recommended a rise of 2.5 percent this year but the government decided that it should be staged, with an initial 1.5 percent rise followed by another 1 percent six months later. Overall, this kept the prison officers’ pay rise under Brown’s 2 percent public sector pay limit.
Prison officers currently start on a salary of about £17,500, going up to about £25,000 over ten years.
Brian Clarke, chair of Birmingham POA, told Socialist Worker, “Our pay awards are meant to be according to performance. There is a growth in prison population but not in prison staff, so our performance is increasing.
“Prison managers have received increases of £4,000 per year. That pisses me off. When they tried to serve an injunction on me this morning, I refused to take it.”
Every trade unionist should oppose the use of anti-union laws and welcome any assault on Brown’s pay freeze.
However, there are contradictions in the role of prison officers.
It is summed up by Cardiff prisoners chanting “you’re breaking the law” to the strikers.
Prison officers should have the right to strike and to a union and it is noticeable that the first response of Labour to industrial action was to head to the courts.
Getting relatively low pay for doing the system’s dirty work gives prison officers a collective identity and means they see themselves as workers.
But it should be remembered that the victims of the prison system are the 80,000 prisoners rather than the prison officers.
Those locked up in prisons are mostly poor and disproportionately black. Increasing numbers of prisoners suffer mental health and addiction problems.
Prison officers’ work, upholding law and order, frequently pushes them to accept the most right wing ideas and actions of the system. One of their main jobs is to control prisoners – and throughout the prison system, many officers have a proven record of racism and violence.
Some of the contradictions can be seen in the strike. In Liverpool the POA shop steward Steve Baines responded to the high court injunction by telling fellow strikers, “Tell them to shove it up their arse, we’re sitting it out.”
Yet when prisoners in the jail protested against their treatment, the POA members rushed back in to control the situation and end a roof top protest.
That one prisoner died locked in his cell in Acklington prison in Northumberland during the dispute should also be a reminder of the harsh reality of life in prisons.
Simon Basketter in Socialist Worker argued that the POA should be looking for fewer prisoners and better conditions in prisons as part of the their demands.
Traditionally prison officers – like their colleagues in the police – have been accommodated at the first sign of trouble. This is the POA’s first strike in 68 years. It is noticeable therefore that Brown’s commitment to neoliberalism means he is currently more interested in maintaining the public sector pay limit than keeping the POA onside.
The strike will have focused minds – as every strike does. The government quickly offered talks to head off the action.
There is a clear lesson for other workers here. If prison officers can take unofficial illegal strike action over Brown’s cuts and force concessions from New Labour ministers, surely other public sector unions must be able to do the same.
The prison officers’ strike is another sign of the crisis facing New Labour and another argument for workers pushing hard for action against Brown.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
there goes the neighbourhood
01.09.2007 22:15
Now that the rats have abandoned the good ship Solidarity they have come to provide the leadership that us dim witted anarchists sorely needed. Three crappy promoted posts in a row - my, we have been busy little infiltrators.
the next big thing
screw is still a screw
02.09.2007 23:22
you fuck wits.
.
damn SWP, step away from OUR media
04.09.2007 11:39
When are people gonna realise that the SWP are a cancer trying to subvert resistance, into their meaningless little club. Its a tried and tested strategy of the long dead left, let the workers fight then bomb them to submission at Krondstadt, let the anarchists die on on the front while bringing back capitalism in the safety of Barcelona. These idots need to learn that their world ended when the Berlin Wall came down, they're a dusty relic on the shelf of history filed under 'treacherous authoritarian scum'.
BTW- The "clear lesson for workers" here is that if you side with the bosses (like no strike for 68 years and being part of the systematic brutalisation of the working classes), you STILL get shafted like the rest of us, just ask a Notts Miner.
trot baiter
Which Side Are You On? Screws Out of the TUC!
12.11.2007 21:30
Which Side Are You On?
Screws Out of the TUC!
On 29 August, the Prison Officers Association (POA) defied the
government and walked off the job for a day, in protest against a 2.5%
pay offer. The government's unwillingness to aggressively go after the
POA has been celebrated by various reformist leftists as an example of
how militant trade unionists can successfully defy reactionary
legislation. But the POA is not a workers' organisation – they
represent the personnel of a vital arm of state repression. This is
why the government has been so reluctant to move against them and also
why it is a mistake to view their action as a blow against anti-trade
union laws.
Marxists do not consider police and prison officers as part of the
workers' movement, regardless of their social origin, as Leon Trotsky
made clear:
`The fact that the police was originally recruited in large
numbers from among Social Democratic workers is absolutely
meaningless. Consciousness is determined by environment even in this
instance. The worker who becomes a policeman in the service of the
capitalist state, is a bourgeois cop, not a worker.'
(`What Next? Vital Questions for the German Proletariat', 1932)
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Communist Party of Great Britain
(CPGB) and Socialist Party (SP) were all enthusiastic about the POA's
strike. The SWP opined:
`Prison officers should have the right to strike and to a union….'
. . .
`There is a clear lesson for other workers here. If prison
officers can take unofficial illegal strike action over Brown's cuts
and force concessions from New Labour ministers, surely other public
sector unions must be able to do the same.'
(`Prison officers' unofficial strike rattles government',
www.socialistworker.co.uk, 1 September)
While the CPGB characterised the POA's members as `direct agents of
state repression', they nonetheless consider them `exploited workers'
and concluded:
`Communists are certainly in favour of prison workers and members
of the police force having the right to form and join trade unions and
having the right to strike. It is akin to our demand that members of
the armed forces be given such rights.'
(Weekly Worker, 6 September)
The SP took a similar tack:
`All England and Wales prisons were affected and the government
was left reeling in shock. This united and determined action will be
applauded by socialists and trade unionists throughout the labour
movement and stands as an example of how to treat the anti-union laws.'
(The Socialist, 30 August)
Socialist Worker acknowledged that prison guards are usually
right-wing and many are overt racists:
`Prison officers' work, upholding law and order, frequently pushes
them to accept the most right wing ideas and actions of the system.
One of their main jobs is to control prisoners – and throughout the
prison system, many officers have a proven record of racism and violence.'
(op. cit.)
The Weekly Worker also tempered its enthusiasm for the POA with a
disclaimer:
`While Marxists can only but approve of prison officers and other
workers in uniform trying to assert themselves as workers by
organising in trade unions and striking, we never lose sight of the
reality of the state's institutions of repression of which they are part.'
(op. cit.)
The SP's statement, by contrast, simply praised the strikers'
`courageous stand':
`Prison officers' leaders are perhaps less intimidated by threats
of prison than others might be, knowing that they would be looked
after inside by their own union members! They would also meet a good
reception from a layer of fellow inmates, some of who welcomed the
strike action, despite suffering deprivations on that day.
`This support is partly because the officers were tipped over the
edge into taking their first ever strike action not just as a result
of a derisory pay offer, but also because of terrible prison
overcrowding, a situation that badly affects prisoners and officers alike.
`However, this does not detract from their courageous stand, which
should be noted well by other trade union leaders, who in any case
would also be treated as heroes by other trade unionists and workers
if they defied the anti-union laws in the interests of their members.'
(Socialist, 30 August)
The SP's enthusiasm for the `courageous' screws led them to invite POA
General Secretary Brian Caton to speak at the opening rally of
`Socialism 2007'. Perhaps he will be invited to join Peter Taaffe in
singing the Internationale at the conclusion of the conference.
Workers Power (WP), which has occasionally criticised those who
describe cops and screws as `workers in uniform', tried to give its
support for the POA a slightly leftist tilt:
`… we do support prison wardens' right to organise and to strike,
and their demands for better pay, just as we support prisoners'
demands for democratic rights and better conditions. Any action that
weakens the ability of the capitalist class to exploit and rule us has
to be a good thing. Especially if it proves that the anti-union laws
are toothless … if we only have the guts to defy them.'
(Workers Power, September)
Permanent Revolution (PR, a 2006 split from Workers Power) took
essentially the same view, claiming in a statement dated 31 August
that: `By supporting its [the POA] action … we push the fight for
wider union action against Brown's pay freeze forward'. Smashing
anti-union legislation and Brown's public-sector pay freeze requires a
willingness to take on the capitalist state – those who want to paint
disgruntled members of the repressive apparatus as a vanguard of a
resurgent workers' movement act to undermine the possibility of any
serious struggle.
Abuse by prison officers: systematic and routine
Many of those leftists who have hailed the POA action suggest that
prison officers have a contradictory role – sometimes good and
sometimes bad:
`We cannot by any means always endorse every trade union action
that they take. There are many demands that they might make – such as
those that would improve their own conditions at the expense of
prisoners' rights – which we would never support and would in fact
argue should be actively fought against by the trade union movement as
a whole.'
(Weekly Worker, 6 September)
In their statement of 31 August, PR takes a similar position:
`The POA is a curious hybrid. Part of its membership is based in
special hospitals like Broadmoor and operates, effectively like mental
health nurses, though with extremely dangerous patients. Another part
of its membership in the prisons – the screws – is, like the police, a
coercive arm of the state. Their role in inflicting repression on
working class prisoners is well documented and they have operated a
no-strike deal with the state for many years (like the police) in
order to carry out the role effectively. They are not, in other words,
the archetypal union militants you would expect to be carrying the
torch on behalf of the wider movement in the current struggle against
pay-restraint.'
Screws are indeed a `coercive arm of the state', which is why they are
not, and can never be, part of the `wider workers movement'. The
brutal abuse of prisoners is routine in Her Majesty's prison system. A
few years ago the Prison Service admitted that officers at Wormwood
Scrubs regularly `subjected inmates to sustained beatings, mock
executions, death threats, choking and torrents of racist abuse'
(Guardian, 11 December 2003). All just part of the routine for POA
members on the job.
The idea of kindly screws functioning as benign social workers,
anxious to help rehabilitate prisoners, and concerned for the welfare
of their charges is simply a bourgeois myth. The function of the
repressive state apparatus is to intimidate and crush anyone who falls
afoul of capitalist law and order. The abuse of those caught up in the
machinery of the prison system is brutal and systematic – it is not
down to a handful of `rogue elements'.
PR tries to spin its support to the screws as a matter of smart
revolutionary tactics:
`But life throws up contradictions and while weird purists who
pass themselves off as leftists can only wail and denounce the POA
revolutionaries have to take an active approach that uses the
contradiction to hasten the break up of the capitalist order. That's
why we should support the POA strike and call on the union to defy the
court injunction and intensify its action.
`Such an approach can pose the question to the POA – who are you
loyal to, the working class movement and its discipline, or the state?'
(op. cit.)
The POA membership are hired capitalist thugs. PR supporters should
ask themselves how better rewarded and equipped agents of capitalist
repression would be likely to `hasten the break up of the capitalist
order'. `Weird purists' like Lenin and Trotsky, who asserted that the
repressive bourgeois state could never be wielded as an instrument of
liberation by the oppressed, had harsh things to say about
`socialists' who pedalled similar notions as `Marxist' tactics.
Reformist cretins & social-democratic illusions
To accept the POA as part of the workers' movement implies that the
coercive elements of the bourgeois state can somehow be brought under
workers', or `community', control. This approach is in absolute
contradiction to the Marxist position on the state. Prison officers
are an integral part of the coercive apparatus which brutally enforces
a social system based on exploitation and oppression. Like cops and
members of the officer caste, screws are class enemies – they have no
place in the workers' movement.
The SP, who are among the most vocal proponents of the view that cops,
screws, etc., are really `workers in uniform', have long upheld the
social-democratic illusion that the working class can use the
capitalists' state to build socialism. In the one union where the SP
has real influence, the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS),
they say nothing about the presence of immigration officers. A
genuinely Marxist group would call for throwing these vicious thugs
out of the union movement (see `The most disgraceful defeat: PCS
capitulation on pension scheme',
www.bolshevik.org/leaflets/PCSbetrayal.html). The SP leadership
pretends that there is no contradiction between defending `illegal'
immigrants persecuted by the state, and supporting the demands for
higher wages and better working conditions for those who harass and
deport them.
In its 31 August statement, PR echoes one of the SP's traditional
justifications for including cops in the union movement when it
brightly proposes:
`… we can also help split the union from those within its ranks
who see their role as guardians of capitalism's prison houses and win
those who aren't to a longer term struggle of fighting to overthrow
the capitalism's [sic] system of (in)justice and replace it with one
based on the needs and interests of the working class.'
Individual prison officers may indeed grow tired of doing the
capitalists' dirty work and come to solidarise with the oppressed
against the oppressors. But there is a class line that separates the
organs of capitalist repression and the organisations of the working
class. In order to become part of the workers' movement, a screw, or a
cop, must first resign their post. Those who remain on duty to carry
out the instructions of Her Majesty's government are, despite any
private reservations they may have, agents of the bosses and, as such,
opponents of the struggle for human liberation.
The workers' movement should of course welcome and encourage any
individual screws who are ready to change sides, but only
social-democratic cretins can regard those who carry out the essential
repressive functions of the bourgeois state to be part of the workers'
movement. Rather than support the prison guards, socialists should be
campaigning to expel the POA from the TUC, and throw immigration cops
out of the PCS.
10 November 2007
Alan Davis
e-mail:
britain@bolshevik.org
Homepage:
http://www.bolshevik.org