>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified) > >New Worker Online Digest > >Week commencing 28th January, 2000. > >1) Editorial - More than money. & Ken for London. > >2) Lead story - Connex strike 100% solid. > >3) Feature article - Labour plans to abolish council housing in 10 years. > >4) International story - Alarm at Turks' nuclear bid. > >5) British news item - Scots force Blunkett to backtrack on student fees. > > >1) Editorial > >More than money. > >THE blame for last Tuesday's train drivers' stnke in south east England >lies entirely with private rail franchise holder, Connex. It is this >privatised company which thinks it can get away with forcing train drivers >to regard overtime and rest day working as a compulsory part of the job >rather than a voluntary option. > > The issue is one which everyone should be concerned about since it reveals >an underlying shortage of drivers. This is a totally unacceptable situation >in the light of the recent Paddington rail disaster. That tragic accident >drew attention to the rail unions' long-standing warning that one of the >problems of rail safety is the pressure exerted on drivers to work >over-long hours. > > The government is keeping very quiet. It is no doubt waiting for the shock >of Paddington to wear off and the issues it raised to disappear from the >media. Certainly it has given no firm undertaking to ensure the Automatic >Train Protection (ATP) system is introduced nationwide, nor has it done >anything to force private franchise holders to increase staffing levels and >reduce the stress of long-hour working on train drivers and other workers >whose jobs are vital to rail safety. > > Now that Connex has forced the issue on its own network the government >should exert pressure on the company to put its workers and public safety >above its desire for more and more profits. If it fails, the franchise to >Connex should be taken away. > > But since all private companies are first and foremost dedicated to profit >making, there will always be a contradiction between the aims of the >shareholders and the needs of the workforce and the public. Rather than >spend millions of pounds of government money on subsidies and the cost of >regulation the railways should be returned to public ownership and control. > > This strike also raised the issue of working conditions and showed that >wages and wage settlements are intrinsically linked to hours, pensions, >holidays, sick pay and other workplace conditions. If wages are dealt with >in isolation the workers soon find that what has been given with one hand >is taken away with the other. Train drivers' union Aslef is therefore right >to fight for wages and hours together. > > This is why workers need the organised strength of trade unions, why we >need to reassert the principle of national collective bargaining, and why >devices like the National Minimum Wage can only be of limited value and no >substitute for trade union muscle. > > **************** >Ken for London. > >LABOUR Party members in London are about to cast their votes for the >party's mayoral candidate. Blair and the right wing have made no secret of >their support for Frank Dobson, the candidate they hope can beat Ken >Livingstone. > > They are now using similar jibes against Livingstone to those the Tories >used in the days of the GLC, painting a picture of Livingstone as the Red >under the city's bed and one of the people who, they say, kept Labour out >of office for nearly twenty years. They don't of course explain why the >people of London voted for a Labour-run GLC during that time -- bucking the >trend of the general elections. > > We support Ken Livingstone's campaign to be London's first Mayor even >though we have differences with him, particularly his stance over the >Balkan War -- a position he shared with both Frank Dobson and Glenda Jackson. > > But this is an election to be the candidate for Mayor of London, not >Foreign Secretary, and we believe Livingstone is the right person for that >job. > > He has pledged to oppose the sell-off of the London Underground and along >with most Londoners has said that the last thing he wants to see is the >discredited Railtrack company running our tube. > > He has a good track record on tackling the problems of London's transport >system and has put forward clear proposals to freeze fares for four years, >to improve the bus services and to increase investment on the tube. > > Above all London needs a candidate who is neither a Blair puppet nor one >that is likely to cave-in readily to Blair's control machine. Many London >Labour Party members will be voting for Ken Livingstone because they see >him as the strongest character and the candidate who is most likely to >stand up for Londoners and the rank and file members of the Labour Party in >London. > ************************** > >2) Lead story > >Connex strike 100% solid. > >by Daphne Liddle > >THE TRAIN drivers' union Aslef last week scored a direct hit with a 100 per >cent solid one-day strike of drivers employed by Connex South Central and >Connex South Eastern last Tuesday. > > The two French-owned train companies operate the busiest commuter services >into London from Kent, Surrey and Sussex. On Tuesday they were able to >operate only one in ten of their scheduled services -- and then only by >using driver instructors to operate the trains. > > The impact on London business was great as workers stayed at home or >struggled in hours late. Many took to cars and spent a large part of the >day in traffic jams. > > The long-running dispute is over the hours drivers are expected to work >and over their pension schemes. > > Last year Connex and Aslef reached an agreement to cut driver hours from >37 a week to 35 and amalgamate all pay when calculating pensions. > > The union also wanted the company to stop relying on drivers working >overtime to run a regular scheduled service -- meaning the overtime was >more or less compulsory and there was a lot of it. Drivers were suffering >from exhaustion with all the danger that implies for passengers. It was to >be implemented as soon as Connex had enough drivers to make it workable. >The union allowed the company several months to recruit. > > But the company dragged its heels and kept insisting the drivers continue >working unacceptable levels of overtime. > > Negotiations were getting nowhere. So drivers tried to operate an overtime >ban -- just as the Christmas and Millennium celebrations were approaching. > > Connex, instead of negotiating with the workers, got a High Court >injunction to prevent an overtime ban during the holiday period, >effectively forcing the drivers to work long, long hours over the holiday >when they wanted some time to be with their families. > > This provoked a lot of anger and as soon as the ban was lifted earlier >this month, they implemented the overtime ban. > > Since then Connex has been forced to cancel up to 400 trains a day. But >the company rescheduled its services and passengers were forced to put up >with far fewer trains and more overcrowding. > > Last Tuesday Connex could operate only 10 per cent of its trains. Some of >these were crowded to bursting. Others were nearly empty because commuters, >uncertain of the service, had decided not to risk trying to travel by train. > > Another five one-day strikes are planned for 2 February, 10 February, 18 >February, 21 February and 29 February. > > But already Connex is indicating it is now willing to negotiate properly. >Aslef is saying, as it has all along, that it will talk to Connex about >ending the strike programme as soon as the company it willing to talk >meaningfully -- and that means proper commitment and dates for implementing >the agreement made last year. > ********************* > > >3) Feature article > >Labour plans to abolish council housing in 10 years. > >by Caroline Colebrook > >TENANTS groups throughout Britain are on alert after suspicions and leaks >were confirmed last week when Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott revealed >that the Department of' the Environment is preparing to hive off all >remaining council housing within 10 years. > > Plans are now being drawn up to sell off the estates to non-profit making >companies and housing associations. > > But these bodies will have to survive in the private sector under market >conditions. If they fail to balance their books they will go bankrupt and >the properties will end up in the hands of the banks or receivers. > > This inevitably means rising rents in the long term and an erosion of >tenants' rights. Only councils offer secure tenancies -- and democratically >elected landlords. > > Other bodies offer at best assured tenancies and mostly short-term assured >tenancies. This means tenants can only count on the roof over their heads >for six months or so at a time. Terms, conditions and rents can be altered >often. > > Most council tenants now are from low income groups who cannot possibly >afford to buy or rent from the private sector. > > The best council housing was mostly sold off during the Thatcher era under >the right to buy legislation. Where once tenants could look forward, after >a few years or so in a tower block, to a transfer to a decent home with a >garden, such homes have now disappeared into the private sector. > > Council tenants are trapped in the worst homes. Decades of lack of funds >have meant that many are now in a disgusting state of repair. Nationally >the repairs backlog will cost �22 billion to clear. > >Rents are forced up by the "daylight robbery" scam, whereby housing benefit >for some tenants is funded from the rents of others, rather than from >general taxation. > > If this extra income was instead used to renovate the estates, there would >be no need to sell them off. > > But the Labour leadership policy is to follow what Thatcher began in >destroying council housing because its very existence undermines rent >levels in the private sector and denies exorbitant profits to private >landlords. > > Now the Department of the Environment is planning a "big bang" under which >local councils will be compelled to sell off the remaining 3.2 million >council homes by the year 2010. > > A new inspection regime will be created with powers to force >"under-performing" councils to put their management services out to >competitive tender. > > Currently only 110 local authorities have transferred a total of 360,000 >homes to non-profit making companies. > > Another 23 authorities are planning to transfer another 270,000 homes. >This includes the country's largest landlord, Birmingham, with 90,000 >houses and flats. > > The Government is unhappy that getting rid of council housing is now >taking so long. Under present terms it would take 20 years to transfer all >of Birmingham's housing stock. > > The main obstacle is that, under current law, tenants have to vote to >approve the transfer in special ballots and many tenants are rejecting the >transfers. They are considering removing that obstacle. > > The Government is due to publish a Green Paper on the future of "social >housing" in early April. > > It is vital that tenants groups are alerted to get a copy (through their >MPs) and to respond to it and to organise to defend council housing. > > If council housing is allowed to disappear there will be no check on the >levels of market rents. People on low incomes will be forced either into >overcrowding or onto the streets. > > ************************* > >4) International story > >Alarm at Turks' nuclear bid. > >A DECISION from the Turkish government on a tender for one of three >consortiums to build the country's first nuclear power plant is imminent. >An announcement due at the end of December was delayed but could be made at >any time now. The British company Kavaerner-John Brown (UK) is part of one >of these consortiums. > > Turkey has been attempting to construct a nuclear power plant for some >thirty years now. The designated site of Akkuyu Bay on the country's >Mediterranean coast was itself licensed for the proposed reactors, likely >to cost Turkey around four billion dollars, nearly 25 years ago. > > If the plan, which is known to have the support of President Demirel and >both Prime Minister Ecevit's coalition partners, is given the go-ahead it >will present a serious danger of an environmental disaster for the whole >region. Of equal concern, it will bring Turkey one step closer to having >the capacity of developing its own nuclear weapons. > > Turkish officials reject both these concerns claiming that it is all >"anti-Turkish propaganda", but the growing alarm, particularly after >Turkey's recent massive earthquakes cannot be so easily dismissed. Local >people from the surrounding villages near Akkuyu Bay have now started to >organise against the proposals and it been estimated that some 80 per cent >are against the project. > > Having experienced last year's earthquakes, they are well aware of the >dangers of constructing a nuclear reactor on a recognised earthquake fault >line. The mayor of Buyukeceli, Ummet Buyuk, represents the people from one >of the nearby villages that will be affected and was recently quoted as >saying, "The earthquakes affected everyone here. There's a fault line close >to Akkuyu and we are all really nervous about it,". > > Turkey therefore cannot afford to be complacent in the aftermath of an >earthquake that claimed some 20,000 of its citizens. The possibility of a >disaster greater in scale than Chernobyl must be a real one. The people of >Turkey and the whole of the Middle East would be put at risk from lethal >radioactive contamination should the proposed nuclear plant ever be built. > > Greenpeace in the region is supporting the campaign of the local >communities and neighbouring countries such as Cyprus have expressed their >concern and called for a rethink on the proposal. Greenpeace has stressed >that Turkey does not really need nuclear power. It is rich in alternative >sources of energy such as solar and wind power and its investment could be >put to good effect here. It is also pointed out that Turkey has an >extremely wasteful energy generation and distribution system. Efforts to >reduce energy losses could bring great savings. > > That Turkey is so determined to pursue the nuclear option seems to have >more to do with strategic thinking than energy policy. In confirmation of >this, the Turkish Nuclear Energy Commission (TNEC) stated that nuclear >plants would have a strategic as well as economic importance. > > In addition, it has been revealed that the TNEC has been ordered by the >government to prepare a detailed report on Turkey's nuclear capabilities >and how nuclear weapons can make it a stronger state. To achieve its >nuclear ambitions Turkey is prepared to put in place a ticking time-bomb >with the potential to wreak economic disaster on its own and neighbouring >lands. > > In the interests of world peace and a safe environment for current and >future generations it is vital that this crazy Akkuyu Bay nuclear scheme is >stopped. > > ********************* > >5) British news item > >Scots force Blunkett to backtrack on student fees. > >THE THORNY issue of student fees in Scotland was settled last week in a >compromise that will save the ruling Labour-liberal Democrat coalition in >the Scottish Executive but leave glaring anomalies in what is paid by >students from different parts of Britain. > > And Education and Employment Secretary David Blunkett has been forced to >come up with a bit more money for English and Welsh students. > > Now Scottish students studying in Scotland will not pay any fees up front >but will have to pay �2,000 after they have completed their courses as soon >as their earned income reaches �10,000 a year. > > This is close to the system recommended by the independent Cubie inquity >into student finances except that Cubie recommended paying back should only >begin when a graduate's income reached �25,000 a year. > > Scottish students from low income homes -- under �23,000 a year -- will >also be eligible for grants of up to �2,000 and the poorest students will >also be offered access to �500 more in loans. > > English and Welsh students studying in Scotland will have to pay tuition >fees at �1,025 a year -- the same rate as at universities in England and >Wales and so will Scottish students studying in England and Wales. > > A move to exempt Scottish students studying in England and Wales from >paying student fees up front would have meant that students from other >European Unions countries would also have had to be exempted. In other >words only English and Welsh students would have had to pay to study at >their own universities. > > Scottish students and opposition parties in the Scottish executive are not >happy with the compromise. > > Scottish shadow lifelong learning minister John Swinney said: "At London's >instigation the executive has watered down the Cubie report. This has >nothing to do with EU law." > > And Richard Baker, president of the National Union of Students, Scotland, >said : "We supported a contribution from wealthier graduates, not a payback >scheme for every graduate. This deal serves the politicians but not the >students." > > But the deal leaves English and Welsh students so much worse off than >their Scottish counterparts that David Blunkett last Tuesday promised >another �68 million in financial concessions. > > This will exempt a further 50,000 students from low income homes from >paying tuition fees and allow 10,000 of the poorest students in England and >Wales to have a maintenance grant. > > Currently students from households with incomes under �l7,000 a year are >exempted from tuition fees. From next September that threshold will be >raised to �20,000. > > The proportion of students paying no fee will rise from 33 per cent to 41 >per cent. > > The National Union of Students has welcomed this as a small step in the >right direction in recognising campus hardship. But it warned that the >Government is "creating farcical anomalies throughout the higher education >system". > > The universities are also concerned that different funding arrangements >will influence students in their choice of course more than subjects to be >studied. > > Imposing means tests on students already creates bureaucracy and >confusion. Now Scotland has different funding arrangements to England and >Wales, the complications will multiply out of hand and administration costs >will rocket. > > The universities will not have much left of the tuition fees by the time >they have finished paying the extra admin costs. > > We must return to the principle of free access to higher education for all >who want it -- with adequate maintenance grants. > > If some students are from wealthy backgrounds or graduates go on to earn >higher wages, this can be resolved through a fair taxation system so that >they put back into the system at least as much as they gain from it. > > The whole of society benefits from the services of well trained and >qualified graduates and should be prepared to pay through a proper taxation >system. > > ********************* > > >New Communist Party of Britain Homepage > >http://www.newcommunistparty.org.uk > >A news service for the Working Class! > >Workers of all countries Unite! __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
