I’ve always known that all SWP union activists have to do what they are told by their central committee (or else) but now it appears that local SWP branches also think they can order “their” union activists about! Perhaps this has always been the case?
It appears that SWP members who hold full time elected union positions should only do so “in exceptional circumstances and only on the proviso that the party closely monitors the comrade’s work, which must involve the CC, the local SWP branch and the respective union fraction”.
I’ve heard of (un)democratic centralism but now it appears that there is also (un)democratic localism! It seems that an union official elected by trade union members not the local SWP branch had stood up to them and refused to do what he had been told (and stopped selling the Party rag) – sensible chap. He even “often acted unilaterally against branch decisions”. Shame on him.
The Doncaster branch of the SWP are so disgusted with the failure of “their” (not the union) branch secretary that they have now gone off and joined the Counterfire splitters who left or were witch-hunted out of SWP in recent years.
I do hope it is made clear in future union elections that SWP candidates firstly admit that there are members of the SWP and whether they will do what they are told by their Central Committees and/or what local SWP branches tell them.
Finally, the letter claims that it was a deliberate decision of the SWP central committee to break up the ACAS meeting between Unite and BA. If true then the SWP is definitely falling apart even faster then I thought. Shame!
