Bob Sutton reports on the Hands Off My Workmate conference.
On 17 October around 140 activists and trade unionists met in London for the first “Hands Off my Workmate” conference — a launch pad for a wider trade-union based campaign to defend migrant workers against checks and raids in the workplace.
The event, held at the School of African and Oriental Studies, had been set up by members of the Socialist Workers’ Party through SOAS Unison and UCU branches. In June this year, nine cleaners working at the university were grabbed in a brutal dawn raid by immigration services armed in full riot gear. All but one were later deported. This attack, facilitated by the collaboration of the cleaning contractor, ISS, and university management, sparked an occupation of the SOAS principal’s offices by activists from both inside and outside the university.
A good starting point for a campaign. However, Elane Heffernan, a leading SWP member, speaking at the “open planning meeting” ahead of the conference, explicitly set out the political space she saw HOMW occupying. Groups like the Campaign Against Immigration Controls [and others] had “scared people off” with political positions that could never win over sufficient support in the labour movement and were therefore recklessly cutting migrants off from people that would be willing to offer real solidarity if not linked to such “scary” politics.
HOMW, by not needlessly antagonising, but working with trade unions [bureaucracies], would “actually win”. This was a coded reference to CAIC activists’ support for the victimised Willis cleaners, who, after being abandoned by Unite, have so far been unsuccessful in their fight against victimisation.
The tone of Heffernan’s criticism has at times been fairly hostile. It is probably fair to say that CAIC suffers in its dealings with the SWP because of its association with the AWL — the SWP don’t like the AWL. Whilst some of CAIC’s most energetic activists have been AWL members and sympathisers, a whole host more are not. CAIC has been a banner under which a wide range of political activists have been willing to organise a working class fight against immigration controls.
To be fair, Heffernan did invite suggestions from CAIC for speakers and took most of the responses on. One of these suggestion led to a highlight of the event, the debate between Alberto Durango, the Unite activist and leading organiser of the Willis dispute, Prof. Phil Marfleet, of the University of East London and Neil Jameson from Strangers into Citizens (SiC), on the question of an amnesty for migrants.
In the room for the debate were many of the people who had been on the “papers for all” contingent on the big SiC demonstration in May. That was organised by CAIC, the Coordinadora Latinoamericana and supported by the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees. The debate brought up the issues present on that demonstration — the racist paternalism and class collaboration of the SiC demand for an amnesty. Framed as it is — amnesty only for those who have been here more than four years, been referred by two employers and shown intent to learn English. The demand was exposed and thoroughly deconstructed.
At the final plenary — not in the advertised programme — we were asked to ratify the campaigns founding statement:
“Sustained unity is not possible while some workers are considered illegal and in constant fear of discovery or are removed from the workplace and union by immigration raids.
“We therefore call for the immediate regularisation of undocumented migrants and for the right of all people living in the UK to work.
“We oppose the use of immigration checks and raids at work and demand that employers do not undertake random checks on workers or facilitate or organise raids by immigration services”.
Katerina, from the Coordinadora Latinoamericana, suggested that the slogan “No one is Illegal” be adopted as a summary for the proposed position.
What ensued was something of a panic on the part of the chair, who had not expected discussion or amendments.
Heffernan spoke strongly against the proposal. Having just made a brilliant speech as to why immigration controls were a weapon of the bosses and a question inseparable to that of rights for migrant workers, she was now saying that this message, the one she had just delivered so impressively, was not one that you could make outside of “little rooms full of activists”. In any case, she said, time was pressing, this was the statement that the Fire Brigades Union had already signed up to, and we should move on.
There were then widespread calls for a vote. Evidently with some reluctance, the chair took a vote. After a somewhat questionable hand count, the result came out as a tie. This was again met with exasperated calls to move swiftly on. However again widespread calls from the floor led to Katerina, evidently perplexed at how her proposal was contentious and the strength of the objection, being given opportunity to give her case.
She said the slogan summarised the apparent consensus viewpoint, or at least that coming out of the debate with Strangers into Citizens, in a concrete and consistent principle. After that Sandy Nicoll, the UCU branch secretary, again SWP, was given an opportunity to give the second [longer] speech against. He implored people to drop the call for the slogan as it would be an obstacle to concrete solidarity of the type that could seriously oppose further attacks. The vote was re-taken. The same number voted for. With more people coming into the room to vote against, the “motion” fell.
There were further ripples of bad faith when it was asked if CAIC could have a space on the proposed steering committee. It was agreed, but on the stated condition that “you don’t come to every meeting just to bang on about No One is Illegal”!
As the meeting was breaking up there were several minor arguments as Gabriella Alberti, who had earlier spoken in a session on “the feminisation of migrant labour” took issue with the off-the-cuff “ultimatum” CAIC had just been given. No doubt it was a product of stress on the part of the organisers, but also a quite deep political mistrust and, in some cases restrained hostility. CAIC were accused of using “shibboleths” and not having a serious approach to an arena of struggle which can often have implications of life and death.
So there are questions over the politics on which this campaign is conducted. However for practical purposes the statement is a “No One is Illegal” position. That is why the CAIC activists present did not choose to have a massive fight over the matter. But there are also questions about the name “Hands Off my Workmate”, and who and on what terms it is a slogan for.
The main question about the campaign is one of its openness and democracy. When questions were raised at planning meetings as to whether the conference would elect a committee or take decisions in its final session, they were not answered. This cannot just be put down to a question of capacity. This was a case of the cards being kept close to the chest of the organisers.
If there are genuine debates around activity, then they should be given space, not steamrollered or approached with the “batten down the hatches” of a factional set-piece.
There remains an important discussion around slogans. Many people, even those heavily involved in the work, are unclear on distinctions or potential nuances between “Papers for All”, “No One is Illegal” “Against Immigration Controls” “Open borders”, “No Borders“ or “Amnesty”. That discussion is something we must continue.
What can be taken as positive out of the SOAS occupation and this new campaign is the potential for far wider sections of the left and the workers’ movement to act on this issue. Beyond that, time will tell.
In London, key workplace battles for migrants, as well as the fights against deportations, need to be cohered and organised with each other and with the rest of the movement. The scope for that to happen has been shown by CAIC’s work — the conferences of hundreds and securing of trade union affiliations.
The struggles of migrant workers have in many ways been exemplars of what our fight against the crisis should look like. They should be considered, along with struggles at Vestas, Visteon, and, (although the question is slightly different) Lindsey, and held up as things to be proud of in the working class movement. Solidarity with migrants, and clearly articulated opposition to immigration controls, must become absolute touchstones, indispensable points of reference for the coming period.
A clear, sharp, working-class, internationalist anti racism programme must be the orientation for our fight against the fascists, against attacks on migrants by their bosses and the state, and for the fight against the politics of “British Jobs 4 British Workers” within the workers’ movement.
Workers of the World Unite!
Comments
One of the most interesting
One of the most interesting conversations I had all day was with one of the cleaners still at SOAS, Robinson. During the session Recession, migrant workers and the British Jobs debate he had spoken and said that, while attention is focused on the BNP, the organised racist violence of the state under a Labour government [and that that will continue under a likely conservative one] was an equally grave threat. The main speaker, Jane Hardy, another SWP member, had responded to this by stressing that the BNP were something fundamentally different.
We got talking about this after the session. I said that it was important to differentiate between the ‘conventional’ bourgeoisie parties and organised fascism. Having said that, given the increasing profile and frequency of checks and raids and the subjective experience of what it means to be a migrant today in Britain (Robinson is from Colombia). It’s hardly ridiculous or surprising for those at the sharp end to express this kind of sentiment.
What this flags up is the massive disjuncture of much of the left’s anti-racism. Why is the fight against the border regime, the struggles of migrant workers seen as distinct, or somehow separate from the fight against the growth of the far-right?
The most glaring example of this was in Hardy’s summing up; after having given a fairly informative account of the state of trade union organisation of migrants in Britain, if a little soft on the trade union bureaucracies, drew no clear practical/political conclusions, other than stating that ‘this is why things like Unite Against Fascism are so important,’ and even this came across as an afterthought.
It doesn’t add up. A politics that calls for the defence of migrants against these kind of attacks by the state but then, when it comes to opposing fascist mobilisations, condemns criticism of those same ruling class parties as divisive in the face of ‘the common enemy’ is utterly unfit for taking on racism in Britain today.
The anti-migrant racism as propagated by all three major parties, the right-wing media and sections of the trade union movement’s leadership has been instrumental in providing the context and discourse in which the far right have been able to grow as they have.
The arguments of 'jobs and homes not racism' - the challenging of fascist ideas on a class basis, need to be combined with an unequivocal stand on the rights of migrants.
A clear and consistent stand for open borders and solidarity with migrants should be one of the bottom lines right across our anti racist argumentation and activity. This is a section of the class whose own agency is often overlooked, as if they need 'bringing under the wing' of the [british] workers movement. 'Hands Off my Workmate' may be some people's starting point, but what I've heard more often is more along the lines of 'we are here because you [the british ruling class] destroy our countries'
CAIC basic leaflet text:
The Campaign against Immigration Controls is a trade union and community campaign fighting for equal rights and freedom of movement for all.
All over the world, capitalist exploitation, ecological destruction and war force people to move in search of better lives. Since the beginning of the 20th century, immigration controls have been used in Britain to criminalise those who come here. Undocumented migrants are treated as a slave caste employed in the most precarious and exploitative work. The lack of any legal status makes this section of the working class completely exposed to the most horrific abuses at the hands of the bosses. Over the past couple of years we have seen the increased use of paper checks and raids as the hammer with which employers have tried to smash any attempt by migrant workers to organise and resist.
Immigration controls are integral to the ability of the state to segregate our class. The bosses’ class through its laws, media and propaganda fills the heads of workers in Britain with the poison of nationalism and delusions of superiority, as defined by legality in the eyes of immigration services. This blinds them from their real enemies and serves as a barrier to solidarity. We have seen workers in struggle raise the slogan ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ in response to multinationals shipping in workers in prison boats in order to smash existing union organisation. These politics should be opposed wherever they crop up, and CAIC activists have done so. They are no kind of response to the bosses’ assault; instead they are a dead end and moreover represent an immediate attack on the position of migrants. This Fear of immigration has a lot of causes, but the scarcity of resources, unemployment and poverty that fuel the growing anti-immigrant racism within our class is not the result migration, but of capitalism and its crisis.
CAIC has supported the struggles of migrant workers throughout London, mainly African, Asian and Latin American cleaners. These are workers who have been driven here from across the world, whose stories provide a powerful account of the horrors of global capitalism. As Clara Osagide, Secretary of the tube cleaners’ grade in the RMT put it at a CAIC meeting;
“Who is legal? What does this mean? If a cleaner is raped by her manager and is unable to speak out because she is illegal, then what does it mean to be legal? We have to talk about why people are here, about British imperialism, about exploitation of people, of land and resources. Look at Nigeria. Shell devastated the country, Shell’s executives travel on the Tubes that are cleaned by migrant Nigerians. We were made into cleaners by these people.”
An end to these controls, to the artificial division of humanity, is not something that will happen overnight. But we must be sharp, clear and identify the fight against them as a line of struggle. Migrant workers are not some charity case that needs bringing ‘under the wing’ of the rest of the labour movement. Where organised, migrants have fought some of the most courageous battles against bosses’ attacks, have been hardest in their demands that the trade unions fight and be accountable and have injected into the workers’ movement an understanding that we are a global class. An absolute bottom line of solidarity and internationalism is that we recognise no dividing lines between us.
Migrant workers should be the pride of our fightback against the crisis, at the front of our demonstrations, and the border regime should be seen as something to be opposed, resisted and punched through by every working-class activist and trade unionist whether we have papers or not. Capitalist laws are there to enforce the power of the ruling class. We are all illegal!
Tube cleaner demonstration
Protest next wednesday for bringing tube cleaning back in house http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/1033