The conference on 7 July of the Shop Stewards' Network [1] attracted 270 activists - 190 delegates (people who ‘represented workers’ ie. reps, stewards etc...) with voting rights and 80 observers (union members and others). Of those attending, large portions were from the organised left, with members of the Socialist Party (SP) in preponderance.

In January 2006, the RMT, complying with motions from its 2004 and 2005 conferences, organised a conference on working-class political representation. The conference was packed out, with large numbers of trade-unionists turned away because the hall was full.

RMT general secretary Bob Crow, however, morphed the initiative into a Shop Stewards' Network. Last October the RMT convened a meeting of activists from across the trade unions to discuss it. A Steering Group with representatives from a variety of unions was formed and decided to launch a ‘National Shop Stewards Network’, of which the 7 July meeting was the founding conference.

Workers’ Liberty activists attended the conference, distributing a bulletin - “Ideas to Rebuild” [Array] - and arguing the case for a consistent strategy inside the unions. We support the idea of rank-and-file and shop stewards' organisations but see the need to take honest account for recent history and develop ideas beyond simple declarations of intent. It’s positive that the RMT initiated this conference, giving it more legitimacy than Respect’s ‘Organising for Fighting Unions’, and that information about the event was distributed through official union structures. However, activists (and especially the Steering Group) should not consider themselves loyally bound to figures like Bob Crow and Mark Serwotka.

The morning plenary session heard speakers from PCS, UNITE and CWU argue the need for coordination across the unions, reporting on the various public sector pay disputes and the central role to be played by shop stewards and other workplace representatives. Discussion from the floor ranged from stinging criticism of the trade union leaderships (the so-called Awkward Squad in particular), and calls for unofficial action as a first step to turning the unions around, to arguments in favour of a "new workers' party".

The dynamics of this discussion were finely tied to the political associations of those speaking, and to one degree or another tainted with an air of unreality or selective amnesia. For example, whilst criticising the ‘Awkward Squad’ and promoting unofficial action, SP members conveniently forgot their role in calling off the 2005 pension dispute within PCS on the basis that “the membership isn’t ready”. The SP may just have been trying to point-score against the SWP, who like to present themselves as the “best builders” of the leadership's strategy, or to counterpose themselves to the timidity of Respect’s ‘Organising for Fighting Unions’ project. The contradictions in their position didn’t elude everyone in the room.

Several workshops were held after the lunch break covering topics including “Fighting the Anti-Union laws”, “Organising in the work place” and “The attack on pensions in the public and private sector”. Workers’ Liberty activists attended each of these sessions and reported a general lack of organisation and purpose.

It wasn’t clear whether these sessions were intended to produce some kind of report, suggest an amendment to the conference declaration or to just be discussion workshops.

The session on pensions was introduced by Dot Gibson from the National Pensioners' Association, who called for trade unions to take issues around the state pension more seriously and suggested an over-focus on work-based pensions has allowed the government to get away with substantial attacks. This may all be true, but her introduction didn’t exactly fit with the workshop title and allowed an in-depth discussion over the 2005 pension dispute – and the lessons to be learnt – to be ‘avoided’. This didn’t prevent the issue being raised from the floor but the arguments put forward by Workers’ Liberty supporters were almost totally ignored (apart from a few shaking heads).

The final session of conference was intended to give time for discussion of a main motion (put together by the existing Steering Group), any amendments and for voting on a new steering committee. The mechanisms for putting amendments and nominating to the committee were not entirely transparent before the conference, resulting in only two amendments being submitted and a scrabble just before lunch to get nominations in.

In the end only two amendments were put – one from the Workers' Power group which called for general strikes across the public sector and one supported by the AWL calling for solidarity with public sector workers in PCS and CWU, local organisation, and support for activists working through the mechanisms of Labour Party affiliated unions (see the end of this report for the full text). Both these amendments were remitted for consideration by the new steering committee, but the movers were permitted to present their cases.

The existing Steering Group also decided to ‘accept’ all nominations for the new Steering Committee (a total of 32), thereby avoiding an election and further debate. To anyone with little or no experience of the Left, the members of this committee are anonymous. The individual appointees are not there by virtue of their activism or representative support but because they had the organisational wherewithal to find out how nominations functioned and to go and fill in a form.

Despite these initial problems, any body which has as its aim the construction of a Shop Stewards' Network should be taken seriously. Workers’ Liberty supporters will engage with the new committee, argue that the Postal and PCS strikes be supported as an immediate priority and try to ensure a non-sectarian, cooperative approach to any local trade union networks, strike support groups and organisations that emerge.

----

Text of amendment supported by Workers' Liberty

1) Insert new paragraph 3 as follows,
"To urgently mobilise support for the CWU and PCS national disputes and to campaign for other unions to bring their disputes forward to establish a coordinated public sector fightback on pay, jobs, and privatisation."

Accordingly, renumber existing paragraph 3 onwards.

2) Insert new paragraph 6 to read,
"To establish local public sector alliances of trade unionists and service users to build links, oppose government and emplyer attacks on local services, and support workers in struggle."

Accordingly, renumber existing paragraph 6 onwards.

3) Insert new paragraph 8:
"To oppose any attempts to paint Gordon Brown as more "Old Labour" than Blair and to support trade unionists in the Labour Party affiliated unions in opposing Brown's attempts to break unions' remaining voting rights at Labour Party Conference - just as trade union activists rallied in support of John McDonnell in an attempt to prevent Brown's coronation as Labour Party leader, and Prime Minister."

Accordingly, renumber existing paragraph 8.