Reply to Jimmy Barnes

Mike Carden
16 June

Dear Comrade Jimmy Barnes,

I, in the interests of democratic debate and the right to reply to your scandalous article in TUR (Trade Union Review) expect this response to be published in full.

LEFT IS RIGHT….POSITIVE PARTNERSHIP IS CONFLICT….PATRONAGE IS DEMOCRACY…..LOVE BIG BROTHER….

In an effort to ease your apparent personal hatred of myself and the struggle of the Liverpool dockers (September 1995 to January 1998) perhaps I can confirm some issues that expose your clear lack of knowledge and understanding relating to myself and the Liverpool dockers.

Your article was compiled for you and you did not attempt to check the integrity of these sources. Like so many these days you just followed instructions. Part of this ghosted article states that I wrote an anonymous document attacking the leadership of the TGWU. This is a disgraceful lie and I expect an apology but I also expect that you will consult with your paymasters in Transport House before you would even contemplate this.

It is a pity that you did not contact myself or the Liverpool Dockers prior to going to print in an effort to combat your deep prejudices against a section of the working class whose history helped form the TGWU over a century ago. A group of workers whose history reflects the principles of solidarity action from strikes for nurses, transport workers, South Africa, Namibia, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua etc. to being amongst the only workers in this country to actually strike, on two occasions, in solidarity with the miners in 1984 something we failed to achieve for ourselves over two and a half years of struggle.

Nevertheless, in an effort to achieve a balance of integrity and a grip on reality I wish to respond to the article attributed to yourself in the last edition of the TUR.

• In my thirty years membership of the TGWU I have attended many meetings involving TGWU members, General Executive Council Members, aspiring GEC Members, full-time officials, aspiring full-time officials, national secretary’s, aspiring national secretary’s, Deputy General Secretary’s and aspiring DGS’s and General Secretary’s and aspiring GS’s. All of whom paid due respect to such meetings constitutional, non-constitutional and public that they often organised themselves, sought support and favour from all, supposedly, in the name of rank and file democracy until, that is, they achieve their ambition or career goal in the union. Not for rank and file democracy or progressive policies, but personal power, money, status and a place in the roll call of dis-honour that so discredits the history of our great movement. A small minority maintain their rank and file roots as paid officials of our union the great majority choose to serve the membership as rank and file members and not paid officials.
• My decision to resign from the TGWU General Executive Council had been taken and reported to rank and file members in Region Six as early as January 1998 when the Liverpool docker’s dispute concluded. I was requested to serve out my term of office and possibly reconsider my position in 1999. One major problem appears to be the view that such elected positions are for life, you join the club and hang on in there, which in many instances is the easiest option of all. I have always felt that this position negates genuine democracy and restricts opportunity for young, black, disabled or women members to achieve their representative rights in our union. I have also expressed, consistently, my fundamental belief in this ability of all rank and file members to access elective positions in the TGWU as opposed to many who simply pay lip service to equality issues whilst ensuring that their, in the main, male white dominance of the union, is protected.
• No. I did not write the critique of our union’s leadership circulated soon after my resignation from the GEC. I tend to say what I feel is right at any meetings I attend and whenever I have written articles or critiques, especially of the leadership of my union, I see this as my democratic right, under rule. As such I always insist that my name be placed on such articles. I have always been opposed to anonymous letters, articles or those who allow themselves to write or speak on the orders of others. I sat on the TGWU GEC for five years and it is interesting to note that neither you nor your coterie of powerful patrons in the TGWU chose to raise these matters with myself, face to face, so as to speak or as part of the democratic process of debate.
• Despite your obvious hatred of ‘clerks’ I was employed as a forklift truck driver on the docks when I was sacked in September 1995. When the dispute began I was sacked by Mersey Docks, along with 500 other dockworkers on September 28th. 1995.
• The decision to end the Liverpool docks dispute in January 1998 was taken as a result of a number of complex and serious factors that tend to impact upon workers when they have been in struggle for two and a half years. To sound bite such a decision to two issues begs the question as to whether you yourself, have ever been or led any substantial disputes with an employer. The tragic death of five dockers during our struggle certainly had a profound effect upon myself and all dockers who knew the families of these brave men.
• The link between a highly paid nationally official of the TGWU leaving to take another highly paid union job in Europe has no link with my status as an unpaid rank and file delegate who has been unemployed for the last four years.
• The Merseyside Dock Workers Families Hardship Fund was established by your friend and comrade, Bill Morris who insisted that this money was not strike pay but a hardship allowance. It was he who insisted upon its structure and method of payment. A local catholic priest, community representatives and wives of the sacked dockers, took responsibility for the fund with the full agreement of Bro. Morris. The total financial support given by the TGWU equated to £13 per week per sacked dockers’ family. The union insisted that this money was signed for each week by each recipient and this was exactly what happened. To date the union has not, officially, expressed any criticism or doubt as to the integrity of this fund, which was ended with the conclusion of the dispute. The small amount left in the fund has been paid to other workers in struggle, local charities, community groups and church funds.
• When the strike ended in January 1998 letters were sent to all our known supporters informing them of the conclusion of the dispute and the fact that no further financial donations should be paid. To this date we have no information regarding any problems in the closure of this fund in February 1998. Obviously, we will respond to any problems with supporting Branches in this regard.
• Rumours of a substantial surplus remaining in the Families Hardship Fund are exactly that, rumours. Whatever funds remained were used to settle accumulated debts and mortgage arrears for some of the dockers and their families.
• A number of projects involving our supporters, we knew, would generate elements of finance long after the dispute concluded in January 1998. Following meetings and discussions with those directly involved it was jointly agreed that a Charitable Trust be established under specific rules to assist the long term unemployed and socially excluded in Liverpool.

I think that these were the main points that you raised on behalf of the real patrons of the Trade Union Review but amidst the hatred you display in this article I somehow detect a wish, on your part, to appear more intelligent than you really are, which is a fundamental problem for people such as you who masquerade as rank and filest whilst seeking to immerse your snout in the trough of patronage and corruption that so dominates our movement. For you seem to get very confused near the end of your ranting waxing philosophical about, if I am correct, my obsession with power in the TGWU, your loyalty to the rank and file and Oliver Cromwell (sic)?.

However, power within the TGWU is a fairly basic issue determined by snout size and positional order at the trough which in turn is normally assigned through unyielding sycophancy. Power, as with all words is a question of definition and in this respect power appears to you as position and status so my resignation is portrayed as the resultant loss of power and influence. Thus, to regain power I am now, according to your powers of prediction, in the process of forming my own union. You really should get out a bit more and restrain yourself from self-flattery as most people would observe no future or point exists in the formation of such an organisation. As the TGWU busily sets about the task of recruiting scabs from Magnet and the Liverpool docks this is testament enough of the politics of the TGWU. Mix in the profound implications of the creation of more non-elective positions in the union, the ‘downsizing’ of democracy and services to the membership, ‘positive partnership’, credit cards, banking facilities, personal insurance, private health care plans and now the purchase of privatised gas and electricity etc. etc. the role of ‘new-unionism’ is made fairly stark. Who, in their right mind, would wish to repeat such a disaster? Yet you accuse me of being an ultra-leftist!

My personal future, as with so many others, will be to continue to struggle for real trade union principles, real democracy, the election of all officers of the TGWU (where their need is clearly identified), a return to providing real and relevant services to our members in the workplace and, importantly, in the community. This is my view as expressed without anonymity.

Mike Carden TGWU 6/601 Branch