03.05.2006
What we need
For the first time in many years there was actually some kind of showing from the trade unions on the London May Day march. Alan Fox reports
The TUC leadership and several unions had decided to take part and mobilise for it as part of their campaign in support of the Trade Union Freedom Bill, which is shortly to be heard in the Commons as an early day motion. The fact that May Day actually occurred on the bank holiday Monday was also a help, of course.
Over the past couple of decades the largest contingent on these marches has been made up of Turkish/Kurdish workers and their organisations, but not this year. However, although Anita Halpin, of the Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain, who chaired the Trafalgar Square rally, implied the event was huge, there were probably no more than around 3,000-4,000 (even her own paper merely claimed there were "more than 5,000"). And it seemed to me the numbers of Turks/Kurds were actually down compared to previous years.
Nevertheless, it was more than welcome that there were a couple of dozen union banners on display in addition to that of the Greater London Association of Trade Union Councils, as well as the usual international contingents and left paper-sellers.
However, it has to be said that the points the union bureaucrats are putting forward are minimalist in the extreme. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber, who spoke at the rally, admitted as much when he described what legal changes he hoped would be carried out "at the very least".
Barber puts forward three timid suggestions ('demands' would be overstating things) as a minimum: "First, unions should be able to take industrial action over the terms and conditions offered by a future employer where jobs are being transferred to the new employer before the transfer.
"Second, action should be allowed against associated employers of the employer involved in a primary dispute. This will help to ensure that employers cannot use technical loopholes to prevent workers in the same workplace, with the same management structure and, effectively, the same employer, from taking action in support of each other.
"And, third, where there is official action in one workplace, supportive action after a ballot against another employer should be allowed when work or production has been transferred to that employer during a dispute to break a strike or where a union is taking defensive action in the first workplace and the other employer has contributed to the dispute: for example, by aggressively cutting costs" (Morning Star May 1).
As can be seen, Barber is effectively accepting that the anti-union laws should be kept in place. All he wants are minor, cosmetic amendments which would have the effect of preventing action that would otherwise be legal being ruled out on a technicality. State-controlled strike ballots and legal delaying tactics are to be retained, as is the ban on solidarity action where there is no direct connection with the 'primary dispute'. And not a word about unofficial strikes (I suspect Barber actually favours a legal ban here, as it helps union bureaucrats keep control over industrial action).
And he has the cheek to say: "This all adds up to a campaign for free trade unions and fair rights for everyone at work." What rubbish. We should be for the right of all workers to withdraw their labour unconditionally. This is an elementary freedom which union bosses should defend. But his three minimal points would not even bring the UK in line with the various UN, Council of Europe and ILO conventions, which the TUC regards as far off aspirations.
It is important that we tell the truth when it comes to the union bureaucrats. In no way are they fighting for genuine trade union freedom - still less for the right of workers, whether organised in unions or not, to sell their labour-power where and when they please. That is why it is foolish to describe the Trade Union Freedom Bill as "a big step forward" that should be "warmly welcomed" (Solidarity April 27). Even the TUC leaders themselves describe their proposals merely as "a few small steps" in the direction of Britain's "international obligations" (January 16 2006 draft, www.ier.org.uk/TUFB%2016.1.6.pdf).
What should be "warmly welcomed" is the fact that even these "few small steps" have come about as a result of pressure from below - for example, the militancy and determination shown by the sacked Gate Gourmet workers. And, of course, the fact that any TUC campaign gives us the opportunity to raise workers' horizons in order to put forward what they actually need.
Chesterfield success
Once again Chesterfield Trades Council organised a very successful May Day event, with a march around the town and a rally in Market Square. Speakers included Gill Whittaker, president of Chesterfield Trades Council (and PCSU Socialist Caucus member), Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCSU, and the Labour MP. After the rally a number of bands entertained the marchers.
There were a number of political stalls next to the square, including one from the CPGB that attracted a good deal of interest. Twenty-five copies of the Weekly Worker were sold, and we did a brisk trade in literature and badges. A large number of people stopped at the stall to talk politics and two people asked to attend future events in the Sheffield area and gave contact details.
A couple of people commented that it was good there were so many young people at a leftwing stall - something they had not seen for many years.
Dan Yates