Socialist Action /August 2002
British Government Policies Trigger
Strike Wave
By TERRY CONWAY
LONDON-It is not only in the United States itself that some of George
W. Bush's friends have been having a difficult time. British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, one of Bush's closest international allies, has been having
a rough ride at home as dissatisfaction with the policies of his government
have played a significant role in triggering a recent strike wave, particularly
in the public sector.
On July 17, 1.2 million workers in local city halls downed tools for
the day in protest about low pay levels. But though pay was the explicit
basis of the strike-and is certainly a real issue for many-anger has also
been fueled by New Labour's attacks on public services.
Tony Blair was elected, first in 1997 and then again in 2001, mainly
because working-class people had had enough of the attacks on their living
standards and services carried out during 18 years of Conservative Party
rule-most notably under the leadership of the hated Margaret Thatcher. Blair
has not only continued with the same policies but in practice has accelerated
the sell-off of public assets at both national and local level.
In Blair's first term of office he could comfortably rely on the overwhelming
majority of trade-union leaders backing him to the hilt. This quiescence
was massively aided by the undermining of trade-union organization and confidence
which Margaret Thatcher had carried through.
The defeat of the Miners' strike was the most notorious of her achievements.
This had profound effects not only in destroying the National Union of Mineworkers
but in undercutting the idea that collective action could defend the interests
of workers. Many of those relatively young workers who have taken action
in recent months have not only not previously been on strike themselves
but have no memory of any successful strike.
Thatcher's legacy was, however, not confined to the defeat of the Miners
but also involved the imposition of a draconian set of anti-trade-union
laws which shackled union activists in a way that made previous traditional
forms of struggle such as spontaneous walk-outs impossible unless those
involved were prepared to act outside the law. The fact that these were
imposed in a climate of defeat meant that achieving such defiance seemed
virtually impossible.
The deepening privatization that New Labour has carried through has also
been accompanied by a series of attacks on workers' conditions-from pay
to health and safety to speed-ups.
To add insult to injury, New Labour and their friends in the media have
also blamed public sector workers for the inadequate services on offer to
those that need them. The reality is that there are real problems with service
delivery-but these arise both from massive under-investment by the state
and from lack of democratic control by workers and users of the services
themselves.
All of these factors combined to make July 17 a massive success. The
final icing on the cake was that recently local councilors voted to massively
up the payment they receive for carrying out their elected duties-resulting
in a situation where many people with full-time jobs elsewhere are receiving
more money for sitting in city halls occasionally than full-time cleaners,
cooks, and others who have no other source of income.
Pickets were mounted in most workplaces and rallies took place in all
the main cities. For a high proportion of the many thousands who participated
this was the first militant action they had ever engaged in-and the mood
was combative.
The day was feted as the largest strike of women workers in Britain ever
and the highest total number of workers on strike since the 1920s. The strike
was called jointly by the three main unions that organize in this sector,
in an unprecedented show of unity. Given the refusal of the employers to
up their pathetic 3 percent offer, a further day's action has been called
in August.
London Underground workers fight privatization
The national local government strikes are not the only sign that union
militancy is on the rise. There had previously been two days of strike action
by local government workers in London from one of the unions involved on
July 17 and another by London teachers. These were demanding a rise in the
extra pay levels that most public sector workers receive for living in the
capital city.
This issue has become particularly sharp over the last couple of years
as massive hikes in property prices have made it more and more difficult
to afford to live in the city, whether people are trying to buy their own
homes or to rent them. Countless stories appear in the media of workers'
commuting huge distances (by British standards) because they can't afford
to live why they work.
Then there have been a series of disputes involving railworkers. Following
the privatization of British Rail, workers are employed by a whole range
of different companies, and therefore their bargaining power has been weakened.
Train drivers remain in a relatively powerful position because there
is a relative shortage and therefore in most companies have been able to
achieve reasonable pay rates. But other grades-guards, ticket collectors,
track maintenance workers, and cleaning and catering staff-have been left
behind.
The anger over poor conditions has been increased many fold by the series
of disastrous accidents on the privatized rail network in which passengers
and staff have been killed and maimed-highlighting in the most graphic manner
the callous way the employers put their thirst for profit before the lives
of those who rely on them.
All of this has led to a series of disputes in a number of companies.
The tactics employed here-as in the local government strikes referred to
earlier-have been a series of one day strikes rather than all-out action.
Clearly there are serious limitations in such an approach, which put considerably
less pressure on the employers and the government. Despite this there have
been some partial victories in at least some rail companies.
One of the effects of the anti-union laws has been to outlaw so-called
"political" strikes, including those against privatization. This
is why workers on London Underground have had to take strike action against
detailed health and safety violations involved in the contracts with the
new private operators the government plans to bring in to run the capital's
subway system.
Several days of action took place before the contracts were allocated,
but the local government strike in mid-July was followed immediately by
an almost total shutdown of London's underground.
These strikes, despite the disruption they cause for people traveling
to work, have massive popular support. After the horrific deaths on the
privatized main lines, no one other than Blair's cronies wants to see London
Underground privatized.
Other disputes that may lead to strike action continue to bubble away-such
as one involving baggage handlers at a number of major airports and amongst
fire fighters. In all cases it seems clear that whatever the particular
question on the ballot paper, increasing dissatisfaction with the government
is playing a significant role in fueling workers' anger.
This small upturn comes in the context of a prolonged period when there
were less days lost in strike action in Britain than at any time since records
have been kept. So this may only be a modest step-particularly when measured
beside general strikes in Italy and Greece-but at least it is a step in
the right direction.
A "new breed" of union leaders
The upsurge in militancy should also be examined in another political
context as well-that of the recent election of a series of new union leaders
in the last year or so.
There are seven general secretaries that the press refer to as being
of "a new breed." Each of these have their own specific politics,
and the dynamic within each of their unions has its own specificity. But
what they have in common is more important than what divides them; they
are all critical of New Labour.
Bob Crow, leader of the Rail Maritime and Transport Union, was formerly
a member of Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, calls himself a Marxist,
and was clearly elected on a left ticket. John Edmonds of the General Municipal
and Boilermakers Union has in fact held office for longer than New Labour
but has moved significantly to the left. He has slashed his union's funding
to New Labour, spending the money instead on anti-privatization campaigns.
He publicly identifies himself as part of this group of new blood.
Dave Prentis, leader of the public sector union UNISON, on the other
hand, was not elected as a left-winger. While his union has been involved
in a campaign of industrial action, the push for this has come from the
base, not from the top. Prentis has been careful to criticize government
policies around privatization and public services rather than the government
itself. On the other hand, he has not done much to distance himself from
his more radical colleagues.
The leader of the Civil Service Union, Mark Serwotka, was formerly a
member of a far left organization and is now a strong supporter of the Socialist
Alliance, which most of the far left in England is building. Serwotka, who
was elected on the basis of his record as a workplace militant, is now facing
a bureaucratic coup from one of his right-wing opponents, who is seeking
to have his election declared null and void.
The most explosive development in terms of shifts at the top of British
trade unions was the defeat in July of Tony Blair's most reliable ally,
Sir Ken Jackson, head of the Engineering Union. Jackson's replacement, Derek
Simpson, is a former member of the Communist Party who describes himself
as "not Blairite but not Blairwrong either"!
Simpson was a virtual unknown who took up the challenge when more prominent
left-wingers failed to stand because they thought they had no chance. But
the membership has had enough of Jackson's partnership strategy, which was
increasingly failing to deliver protection as British manufacturing goes
into deeper and deeper decline.
Simpson won by 410 votes on a poll of 190,000 after a fourth recount.
Initially, Jackson refused to concede defeat but did so a couple of days
after the final recount-and there were strong rumors that this was on Blair's
advice. While New Labour is shaken by the loss of its greatest ally, they
feared that a legal battle that Jackson would almost inevitably lose would
bring them into greater disrepute. Nor is it clear to what extent Simpson,
who seems a mixture of naivete and pliability, will explicitly ally himself
with the other left leaders.
All these elections and shifts at the top are both the product of radicalization
at the base and themselves motors of further changes. Politically, in so
far as they cohere as a group, their trajectory is to seek to "reclaim"
the Labour Party-i.e., to reverse the neo-liberal policies that Blair's
government has been pursuing.
In reality, in the age of capitalist globalization, social democracy
is extremely unlikely to take such a path. As time goes on this will become
more apparent, particularly in so far as the Socialist Alliance is able
to deepen its own implantation in the unions. While it is extremely unlikely
that all the "new breed" can be won to this perspective, it is
not excluded that some of them can be.
The strategy of revolutionaries over the months ahead, therefore, needs
to be based on a number of inter-related tactics:
To support, deepen, and extend industrial action in defense of workers'
living standards and conditions at work.
To argue that the Socialist Alliance work as closely as possible in
united front campaigns with all trade-union leaders critical of Blair.
To continue to argue for the need for the development of a political
alternative to Blair and to win as many trade-union leaders as possible
to this perspective.
Socialist Action /August 2002 |