       Red & Black Revolution
 A magazine of libertarian communism

      Issue 1    October 1994

Produced by Workers Solidarity Movement


   Trade Union Fightback 
    The lessons to be learned

The Programme for National Recovery, 
launched in October 1987, was the 
culmination of almost a year of talks 
between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions 
and the then Fianna Fail government led by 
Charlie Haughey.  It was a three-year deal 
which committed the trade union movement to 
industrial peace in return for  'moderate' 
pay increases (i.e less than inflation), tax 
reform, and government action on 
unemployment.  Pointing to the situation in 
Britain where Thatcher had decimated trade 
union organisation, ICTU leaders claimed 
that the deal would protect the movement 
here from similar attacks from the right. 

 It was sold to workers on the basis that by 
accepting pay increases which were lower 
than inflation, this would help the 
government to get the public finances under 
control and that as a result of this jobs 
would be created.  Despite the fact that 
within days of the Programme's launch (at a 
Press reception attended by the entire 
Fianna Fail cabinet and the leadership of 
ICTU) the government announced a massive 
round of public service cuts, and despite 
the fact that the Programme itself 
specifically endorsed job losses in the 
public sector, ICTU leaders heralded the PNR 
as a victory for the trade union movement. 

 What ICTU failed to point out was that the 
only side which had given specific 
commitments in the deal was the trade 
unions.  While pay increases were 
specifically pegged at rates which were well 
below expected inflation - with no review 
for at least two years - commitments by 
government and employers were couched in 
vague and generalised terms. Indeed, it 
would be more correct to describe them as 
aspirations rather than commitments.  The 
deal was opposed by some on the grounds that 
it was a poor deal, that more could have 
been achieved with stronger negotiators.  
Others - including the WSM - opposed the 
very notion of the trade union leadership 
doing centralised deals with government and 
employers over the heads of the members.   

So began what was to become known as "social 
partnership", leading to The Programme for 
Economic and Social Progress (1991 - 1993) 
and the current deal the Programme for 
Competitiveness and Work (due to run until 
the end of 1996).  Each succesive deal has 
brought ICTU closer and closer to the 
government - to the extent that it is no 
exaggeration to describe them as being the 
third arm of the current Fianna Fail/Labour 
coalition government.  All of the 
consequences pointed out by the deals' 
opponents back in 1987 have come to 
fruition.  

When the Programme for National Recovery 
(PNR) was proposed for ratification by the 
Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) in 
October 1987, organised opposition was 
negligible.  Most of the left appeared to be 
almost unaware of the long term consequences 
of the bureaucrats' adoption of "social 
partnership" and only about a dozen 
independent socialists, Trotskyists and 
anarchists got together to run a limited 
campaign, producing no more than a couple of 
thousand leaflets and posters.

At the beginning of the PNR's third and 
final year, ICTU held a special conference 
(February 8th 1990) to discuss its continued 
involvement in the Programme.  To coincide 
with this conference, the Portobello 
Unemployed Action Group (PUAG) organised a 
public meeting under the title  "Withdraw 
from the Programme; Fight the Cuts "  .  
This meeting attracted no more than twenty 
people - including most of those involved in 
the 1987 campaign.  Yet from this small 
beginning, it was decided to establish a 
campaign to work for the rejection of a PNR 
MarkII.

Over the following months, Trade Unionists 
and Unemployed against the Programme (TUUAP) 
was established and managed to build a 
campaign which attracted the sponsorship of 
over 300 trade union activists across most 
unions - both public and private sector 
-with groups in over a dozen towns and 
cities.  Although the number of campaign 
activists was considerably smaller than 
this, TUUAP organised two successful 
conferences (one of which was attended by 
over 130 people) and public meetings in at 
least 10 different venues.  In the 3-week 
period before the vote on the Programme for 
Economic and Social Progress (PESP) almost 
100,000 leaflets were distributed.  In 
addition local TUUAP groups in several areas 
produced their own leaflets and sectoral 
leaflets were distributed among INTO, TUI, 
Public Sector and Building workers.

TUUAP brought together shop stewards and 
activists from SIPTU, ATGWU, IDATU, TUI, 
INTO, ASTI, MSF, CWU, CPSU, IMPACT, AEU, 
ETU, NEETU, NUSMW, AGEMOU, UCATT, GMBTU, 
BATU, EEPTU, NGA, PNA, PSEU, NUJ, BFAWU, 
UMTTIE as well as unemployed activists from 
Dublin, Thurles, Clonmel and Portlaoise.  
Groups were established in Dublin, Cork, 
Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Dungarvan, 
Shannon, Clonmel, Thurles, Portlaoise, 
Dundalk, Drogheda and Letterkenny.  Public 
meetings were held around the country, 
factories were leafletted, motions brought 
to branch meetings and to trades councils.  
For the first time in years there was the 
genesis of a challenge to the leadership's 
thinking.

In Dublin, the TUUAP group met fortnightly - 
and weekly when required. Attendances varied 
somewhat but there was always a minimum of 
between 15 and 20, with an average 
attendance of 25 to 30.  There was a 
constant buzz of activity and TUUAP 
activists formed the backbone of the 
Waterford Glass Strike Support Group.  Trade 
union meetings, Trades Council meetings, 
etc. were all leafletted looking for support 
for the campaign.  Press releases and 
letters to the papers were issued weekly 
(sometimes even two or three a week) & 
several press conferences were held.  While 
the media were not very generous in their 
coverage, the campaign did make the front 
page of the national dailies on more than 
one occasion.  In the three week period of 
the vote on PESP, this activity reached its 
peak and over 40 people distributed 
approximately 50,000 leaflets in the Dublin 
area alone. There was therefore a consistent 
level of activity and a sense that the 
campaign was a real and genuine attempt to 
challenge the concept of 'social 
partnership'.
 
Less Glorious
The history of TUUAP in the post-PESP period 
is, however, somewhat less glorious.  The 
Conference held on 25th May 1991 attracted 
an attendance of less than 60 with just 9 
people from outside Dublin.  This conference 
debated 19 motions - all of which envisaged 
the campaign continuing on in some form.  
Among the objectives which these motions set 
out for a supposedly renewed TUUAP were to
"...campaign against the [Industrial 
Relations] Act..." (Motion A)
"...constitute ...as an ongoing campaign..." 
(Motion B)
"...maintain and develop the network of shop 
stewards and trade union activists built up 
around TUUAP..." (Motion C)
"...intervene in all workers' struggles, 
initiating support groups for strikes, 
raising financial support and 
solidarity..."(Motion F)
"...raise in...public sector unions the need 
for action to defend the C&A scheme" (Motion 
I)
"...renew the struggle...to force a change 
in the policy of ICTU, as expressed through 
the PNR and the PESP, to the public 
sector..."(Motion J)
"...produce a regular newspaper/bulletin..." 
(Motion L)
"...provide practical and organisational 
support to strikes as they occur..." (Motion 
P)
...stand/support candidates for 
Branch/Regional/National Executive 
Committees..." (Motion Q)

The reality however was somewhat different.  
Having begun life as a single-issue 
campaign, much of the energy around TUUAP 
was already dissipated by the time of the 
conference.  The core group of activists had 
dwindled to less than ten and nothing that 
was said at the conference indicated that 
this core group was likely to increase in 
size.

In fact in the post-conference scenario, the 
number of activists dwindled even further 
and nothing more than the rather irregular 
production of a newsletter was possible.  In 
early 1992, it was decided to attempt to 
expand this newsletter to a more regular 
tabloid-size publication.  However after 
just two issues (April/May 1992 and Autumn 
1992) this had to be abandoned due to a lack 
of resources and personnel.  While the 
response to "Trade Union Fighttback "   (as 
the paper was titled) was generally 
positive, the number of people willing to 
take out subscriptions, take copies for sale 
or indeed write articles for publication was 
disappointingly small and meant that the 
venture was unsustainable.

Poor response
As PESP began to approach the end of its 
life, several attempts were made to 
reconstitute TUUAP as a campaigning group 
with some real base.  The name was changed 
to "Trade Union Fightback" (TUF) at a 
'national' meeting held on 22nd May 1993.  
It was an indication of what was to come 
that this meeting had an attendance of less 
than 30 people - with just one from outside 
Dublin.  Despite several mailouts to almost 
300 contacts in the months between May 1993 
and February 1994, the response was almost 
non-existent.  Dublin meetings - even during 
the vote on PESP's successor, the Programme 
for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) - had 
less than ten regular attenders.  In the 
rest of the country there was only one 
formal meeting - in Portlaoise where the 
initiative came from an unemployed TUF 
supporter.  In the end, the campaign 
amounted to just 5,000 leaflets, most of 
which were posted to contacts in the hope 
that they would be distributed.

It is difficult to explain exactly why a 
campaign which had put up one hell of a 
fight in 1990/1991 was hardly able to raise 
even a whimper of protest in late 1993.  I 
think, however, that the writing was on the 
wall since the conference of May 1991.  In 
hindsight we can see that the attendance at 
that conference (or rather those who did not 
attend) was evidence of a huge 
demoralisation following the ballot.  To a 
certain extent TUUAP had become a victim of 
its own success.  A campaign which had begun 
as an attempt to maximise the 'No' vote had 
drawn in such a layer of supporters that 
some people began to feel that we could 
actually deliver a rejection of the PESP.  
When we failed to achieve the result, 
demoralisation set in.  If at that 
conference in May '91, we had taken stock of 
the situation, and taken this into account, 
perhaps we would have adopted a more 
realistic set of motions. 

The subsuquent period of time (i.e. 1991, 
'92, '93) saw an even greater fall-off in 
general trade union and political activity 
than had been the case in the previous 
number of years.  Disillusionment with trade 
unions was more the rule than the exception 
and TUUAP/TUF's attempts to keep going as a 
focus for anti-'social partnership' activity 
fell onto the shoulders of just three or 
four activists.  As the PCW approached, 
Militant Labour decided to focus its 
energies on the newly-established Militant 
Labour Trade Union Group, the Socialist 
Workers Movement made no attempt to involve 
themselves in the campaign and again it was 
left to a handful of activists to attempt to 
launch a 'national' campaign.  It simply 
proved unsustainable and, following  a 
disastrous campaign, the few people who had 
attempted to keep the initiative alive were 
left with no option but to formally wind up 
TUF - at least for the time being.

Untapped Potential?
In attempting to analyse the level of 
success or failure which TUUAP/TUF achieved, 
it is important to start from a position of 
realising exactly what the initiative 
represented.  Was it laden with untapped 
potential?  With a more 'correct' programme 
could TUUAP/TUF have become the genesis of a 
mass rank-and-file movement?  Or did it 
simply tap into an anti-'social partnership' 
feeling among a layer of activists and 
provide a forum through which their activity 
could be co-ordinated?

As already mentioned, TUUAP was established 
as a single-issue campaign. It had one 
objective - to defeat the ICTU's planned 
successor to the PNR (or at least to 
maximise the vote against).  In a document 
circulated to TUUAP activists in the lead-up 
to the Conference of 25th May 1991, Des 
Derwin (TUUAP Chairperson) stated
"It need not have been a shop stewards 
campaign.  It was never explicitly so and 
the level of participation indicates that it 
was hardly a spontaneous initiative from the 
shop stewards of Ireland!  The aim was to 
defeat or at least oppose the Programme and 
it could have been an organisation of 
concerned individuals like most single-issue 
campaigns.  And, let's face it, as regards 
its core and activities it was like that, 
with little participation from the shop 
stewards on the ground and, of course, no 
structural participation from union 
committees etc."(1)

Further on, he continued
"At base TUUAP committed many stewards and 
union activists to opposing the Programmes 
and to a modestly comprehensive 'fightback' 
alternative programme.  For many this was 
their first embracing of alternative ideas 
for the labour movement and they may not 
even be aware of the many other practical 
and comprehensive proposals for change and 
advance."(2)

So TUUAP achieved the endorsement of a 
relatively broad layer of trade union 
activists united on the specific issue of 
fighting PNR/PESP.  It never attempted to 
present a radical alternative strategy for 
democracy and change in the trade union 
movement.  While the 300 or so sponsors of 
the campaign were united in their criticism 
of the state of the movement and the 
direction in which trade union leaders were 
taking it, there was not necessarily 
agreement on all the tactics and strategies 
which would be needed to reclaim the 
movement.

Indeed, there was always a considerable gap 
betwen the level of formal support (as 
expressed by endorsement of the TUUAP 
statement) and the level of active support.  
As Des Derwin put it:
"While TUUAP could present itself now and 
again as an alliance of shop stewards (the 
Dublin press conferences, the National 
Conference, the founding  meetings of the 
main groups, its literature), these were 
exceptional occasions, requiring great 
organising efforts (and even then only a 
small minority of the signatories were 
involved) and the active nuclei in the 
groups were very small and did not retain 
the participation of many 'ordinary decent' 
stewards and reps."(3)

Nevertheless the campaign could justifiably 
claim to be the biggest and most 
representative gathering of shop stewards 
and activists since the national federation 
of shop stewards and rank and file 
committees of the 1970's.  As already 
mentioned, fortnightly meetings in Dublin in 
the months leading up to the PESP ballot 
were very well attended (20-30 attended 
regularly).  Many groups outside the capital 
produced and distributed local leaflets.  
The distribution of almost 100,000 leaflets 
in the 3 weeks immediately before the ballot 
indicated a high level of activism - albeit 
for a limited period.

Following the ballot however the unifying 
factor of campaigning for a No vote was 
gone.  Having provided a co-ordinating 
structure for trade unionists who wished to 
oppose the PESP, TUUAP now had to look to 
the future and attempt to discover a way to 
use what had been achieved as a base for 
building a more long-term focus for 
opposition to the rightward stampede of the 
leadership.

Narrow Focus
While the majority consensus in TUUAP had 
been that the campaign should - in the run 
up to the ballot - confine itself to the 
maximisation of the No vote, there had been 
a school of thought - mainly represented by 
Irish Workers Group (IWG) members active in 
the campaign - that this focus was too 
narrow.  The IWG paper "Class Struggle" 
argued 
"...lodged within the singleness of purpose 
with which TUUAP approaches its goal is a 
fundamental contradiction.  Insofar as it 
limits itself to the single isue of getting 
out the 'no' vote, the campaign has turned 
its back on the vital need to build an 
alternative to the Plan.  This is  a fatal 
flaw - for when faced with a barrage of 
propaganda coming from the union tops, many 
workers who are thoroughly sickened by the 
programme still see no real alternative to 
it."(4)

IWG argued that TUUAP should aim to be more 
than a 'vote no' campaign:
"Its branches and sectoral groups can and 
must become the basis, not only for 
mobilising a No vote, but for taking up 
related issues.  The key to this is to 
develop beyond limited anti-PNR bulletins 
and begin to organise rank and file 
bulletins in each sector.....They must be 
constituted as a permanent network of 
militant activists that will remain in 
existence long after the battle over the PNR 
is fought, to co-ordinate a class-wide 
response to the bosses' attacks."(5)

Looking back on the history of TUUAP after 
the PESP ballot, this is still the question 
for debate - would TUUAP have been any more 
of a 'viable entity' in May 1991 if it had 
twelve months previously set as one of its 
main objectives the building of a rank-and-
file movement?

Rhetorical Gesture
There were very few TUUAP activists who were 
- and are - not fully aware of the need for 
a mass rank-and-file movement.  If, however, 
TUUAP had set the building of such a 
movement as an immediate objective, it is 
likely that differences would have arisen as 
to the tactics, strategies and indeed 
structures needed.  In any event, to have 
done so without first establishing a solid 
base among shop stewards and union activists 
would have been nothing more than a 
rhetorical gesture.

A rank-and-file movement cannot be willed 
into existence.  It will not be the cause of 
on-the-ground activity but will come about 
as the result of such activity.  TUUAP/TUF 
was never - at any stage of its existence - 
in a position to declare itself a shop 
stewards/rank-and-file movement:
"Although it may wish to adopt the aim of 
establishing a shop stewards movement, the 
proportion nationally of shop stewards 
involved in TUUAP, the input from workplaces 
(as opposed to individual activists) and 
committes, the level of participation beyond 
formal support, and the breadth of the basis 
of that support (opposition to the 
Programmes) are all insufficient to describe 
TUUAP or its immediate successor as a shop 
stewards movement...it would be a shell 
without any real substance."(6)

A genuine rank-and-file movement will only 
be built as a result of both experience of 
struggle and clearly worked-out ideas of 
what can be done within the unions.  There 
is no evidence to suggest that had TUUAP 
from its outset set the building of such a 
movement as one of its main aims, it would 
have been one iota closer to the achievement 
of that aim by the time voting on the PESP 
had finished.

Low ebb
Industrial and political struggle in the 
1990-'91 period - and since - was at a low 
ebb.  Workers' confidence is low and most 
industrial struggle which is taking place is 
of a defensive rather than an offensive 
nature.  All trade union activists are aware 
of the growing sense of apathy and 
disillusionment and the fact that trade 
union consciousness can no longer be taken 
for granted.  Attendance at union meetings 
is extremely low and even Phil Flynn (IMPACT 
general secretary and current President of 
ICTU) complained of the low level of 
participation in the ballot on the PCW. (7)  
For a whole layer of workers - both young 
and not so young - 'the union' is something 
abstract and this sense of alienation is 
deepened by the "New Realism" and "social 
partnership" of the leadership.

In a feature in "Industrial Relations News"  
(IRN) in early 1993, Norman Croke (SIPTU 
official and recent candidate for the vice-
presidency of that union) admitted that 
centralised bargaining is eroding trade 
union democracy
"When negotiations take place in camera 
through the aegis of the Social Partners, 
active trade union membership participation 
is severely curtailed.  Trade union members 
and lay officials are relegated to the 
position of passive observer within their 
own organisation and workplace." (8)
Croke noted that in a study of membership 
participation carried out in the Irish 
Transport and General Workers Union (ITGWU) 
- forerunner to SIPTU - during a period of 
decentralised wage bargaining and reported 
in IRN 24/1989, 81% of trade union members 
studied had participated in votes on wage 
deals.  However, the result of SIPTU's 
ballot on the PESP showed that out of a 
claimed membership at the time (1991) of 
208,000 (he admits that the actual book 
membership was only approximately 180,000), 
only 90,805 members voted.  In other words, 
only 50.5% of members cast a vote, showing 
that 30% more trade union members voted when 
the wage deal was negotiated locally through 
free collective bargaining.  More recently, 
this conclusion has been reinforced by the 
vote on the PCW.  Of SIPTU's claimed 1993 
membership of 197,500, only 91,419 (46.3%) 
participated in the ballot.  (It is 
interesting to note here that only 61,173 
SIPTU members - 31% of the total membership 
- actually voted in favour of the PCW).

Croke himself carried out a study of the 
opinions of a sample of 91 lay activist and 
rank-and-file members within SIPTU - a study 
whose findings reiterated the fact that 
centralised bargaining has increasingly 
isolated ordinary trade unionists from the 
decision making process.  Among the comments 
made by Croke in the course of his IRN 
article are
"...rank-and-file participation at the 
central decision making forums is all but 
non-existent..."
"...trade union activists and members have a 
preference for decentralised bargaining and 
prefer such bargaining to be undertaken by 
their elected shop stewards and local full-
time Branch officials."
"...the developing consensus or Social 
Partnership approach to industrial relations 
within the trade union movement is confined 
principally to the leadership..."
"The implications for the trade union 
leadership and movement in containing lay  
and rank-and-file activists in a passive 
role...carries with it the danger that the 
leadership and the movement may become less 
relevant to its members."(9)

While we do not need Norman Croke or anybody 
else to tell us that 'social partnership' is 
anti-democratic, it is interesting to note 
that even among the bureaucrats there is a 
realisation that it is not safe for them to 
be too open about their duplicity.  And 
while the bureaucracy will remain happy 
enough with a quiet, disillusioned 
membership (as long as that membership 
continues to fund their huge salaries and 
high-flying lifestyles), our challenge is to 
turn the apathy into anger and a demand for 
change.

What's to be done?
The question for trade union activists is 
not whether rank-and-file activity is a good 
thing but how such activity can be motivated 
- in other words, what are the aims, 
structures and strategies needed to combat 
the apathy and, in periods of low activity 
such as we are currently experiencing, where 
should our energies be directed?  With over 
55% of all Irish employees unionised, there 
is a great potential power in the trade 
union movement.  The tapping of that 
potential poses a challenge for all those 
interested in building a free and democratic 
society.  It is important that in discussing 
what can be achieved, we realistically 
assess the current position and avoid 
trotting out ritualistic slogans.

On the organised left, the main strategies 
put forward for trade union work could be 
summarised as 1.Building Broad Lefts, 2. 
Rank-and-filism 3.Building a Solidarity 
Network (Laying the groundwork) . It is 
crucial that we understand what each 
involves.

1. The Broad Left Strategy
The principal objective of the Broad Left 
Strategy is to elect a more 'radical' or 
'left-wing' leadership.  Those who advocate 
a Broad Left Strategy do of course usually 
argue for officials to be electable and re-
callable and for them to be paid at the 
average wage of the members they represent.  
The fundamental flaw in this strategy is 
however that it is presumed that by electing 
a new leadership the unions can be changed 
from the top down.

This strategy does not however address the 
basic problem.  Just as society cannot be 
improved fundamentally by electing a 'left-
wing' government, neither can the trade 
union movement be reformed in this way.  
Pursuit of the Broad Left Strategy means 
that the election of leaders becomes more 
important than fighting for changes in the 
very rules and structures of the movement 
which would allow for more democratic 
participation.

Just as Anarchists believe that workers do 
not need leaders to organise our society, so 
we contend that the potential power of the 
trade union movement is stymied by the 
current divisions between leaders and led. 
Real decision making is concentrated in the 
hands of a very small number of people.  
This situation has been compounded by the 
amalgamations and 'rationalisation of 
structures' which have occured over the past 
number of years.

Within the current structures, a trade union 
official's role is that of arbitrator, 
conciliator and fixer.  In order to fulfil 
this role, an official must have control of 
his/her members.  If an employer cannot be 
sure that the official can deliver workers' 
compliance with a deal, why would that 
employer bother with negotiations at all?  
It is because of this that officials are so 
quick to condemn 'unofficial' action (i.e. 
action which hasn't been given their 
approval) and this is also the reason why 
the average official does not encourage a 
high level of debate and activity among the 
rank-and-file.

No matter how 'radical' the official might 
personally be, the structures of the 
movement dictate that he/she is not in a 
position to encourage members to fight for 
their demands.  The Broad Left Strategy - 
while usually padded out by calls for a 
'fighting leadership' (whatever that is!) 
and for internal democracy and 
accountability - is essentially aimed at the 
election of a new leadership who will 
supposedly bring about change from the top.  
It fails to address the crunch issue - it is 
not the individual leaders who are the real 
problem, rather it is the structures which 
give them all-encompassing power.

2.Rank-and-Filism
This strategy involves fighting within the 
trade unions for more democracy, more 
struggle and more involvement by 'ordinary' 
members. It is a strategy with which 
Anarchists would be in full agreement.  As 
already mentioned, however, a rank-and-file 
movement cannot be willed into existence.  
Constant repititious calls for the building 
of a rank-and-file movement do little or 
nothing to bring about such a movement.  
Where such groupings have existed in the 
past they have come about as a result of 
groups of workers coming to the realisation 
that the union bureaucracy is an obstacle to 
them in their struggle.  In circumstances 
where they are denied sanction for strikes 
or find themselves being dragged into 
endless rounds of mediation, conciliation, 
Labour Court hearings, Labour Relations 
Commissions etc., workers often come to the 
conclusion that it is necessary to bypass 
the union officials in order to fight.  It 
is when workers are in conflict with bosses, 
when their confidence in the bureaucracy has 
been eroded and when they themselves are 
confident enough to take up the fight that 
they realise the need for independent 
organisation within the unions.  The point 
is that - as I mentioned earlier- rank-and-
file movements come about as a result of 
workers' confidence and experience of 
struggle - not the other way round.  At a 
time of low struggle and confidence, any 
attempt to build such a movement will 
attract only a very small number of 
activists.  That is not to say that such 
attempts (where they arise from a genuine 
anti-bureaucratic feeling) are wrong, just 
to counsel against unrealistic goals.

3.The Solidarity Network
Nothing is to be gained by constantly 
putting out calls for the ideal- a genuine 
mass rank-and-file movement which would take 
the power away from the bureaucrats.  Indeed 
the constant issuing of such calls can often 
provide cover for those who do not wish to 
make a realistic assessment of the current 
position and apply themselves to what can be 
done in the here and now.

In a climate of widespread 
disillusionment/demoralisation, TUUAP/TUF's 
great strength was that it provided a forum 
for an admittedly small layer of activists 
to come together on a limited platform. It 
aimed - and to some extent at least 
succeeded - to break down the isolation felt 
by the most militant activists.  It provided 
a network for efforts to be pooled against 
the concept of 'social partnership'.  I 
believe that the correct decision was made 
at the outset when TUUAP confined itself to 
the maximisation of the 'No' vote on PESP 
II.  This did not mean that all the other 
issues which confront the trade union 
movement were ignored.  It meant instead 
that these issues could be discussed in an 
open non-sectarian manner.

In periods of low struggle such as that 
which we are currently experiencing, it is 
important that trade unionists take stock of 
the possibilities for action, that we 
address and debate issues such as:- What is 
the best way to organise the reclamation of 
the trade union movement by rank-and-file 
activists?  What tactics should be employed 
when an upturn in struggle does come?  It is 
also important for socialists within the 
trade unions to continue to provide support 
for those struggles which do occur. (In fact 
such support is even more necessary in 
periods of low struggle in that those trade 
union battles which do take place are 
invariably of a defensive nature).  Now is 
the time for those of us who wish to see 
wholesale change in the trade unions and 
their structures to be laying the 
groundwork, to be identifying  key 
acticivists and discussing issues with them, 
to be building contacts within various 
sectors and various unions.  This is work 
which can often be slow, tedious and 
unglamorous but it is work which is crucial 
if we are ever to take realistic steps along 
the road to building the oft-demanded 'mass 
rank-and-file movement'.  This is what we 
mean when we talk about building a 
Solidarity Network, what is involved in 
reality is the laying of the foundation 
stones for our greater ambitions.

While TUUAP/TUF has now been formally laid 
to rest, such initiaives will inevitably 
arise again.  Whether as strike support 
groups , action groups within individual 
unions or more long-term pro-democracy, 
anti-bureaucracy campaigns, workers will 
always be coming together and discussing the 
issues which confront us.  Anarchists will 
be to the forefront of these discussions - 
not as self-appointed leaders but as a 
'leadership of ideas' - arguing for change 
and working to bring about that change.

References
1. Derwin, Des: "Some thoughts on the future 
of TUUAP",  May 1991.  Page 2
2. ibid.  Page 2
3. ibid.  Page 3
4. "Class Struggle" No.22 November/December 
1990.  Page 2 "TUUAP Challenge"
5. ibid.
6. Derwin, Des op. cit.
7. Reported in "Irish Times", Monday 21st 
March 1994.
8. Croke, Norman: "Trade Union Membership 
Participation in Centralised Bargaining"   
in Industrial Relations News No.2, 14th 
January 1993.   Page 17.
9. Croke, Norman op. cit. Pp. 18-21



