AUT: Re -Liverpool dockers

[HENSI1@xxxxxxx]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_887402479_boundary
Content-ID: <0_887402479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Comments from Echanges on the previous texts on this subject.

--part0_887402479_boundary
Content-ID: <0_887402479@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-type: text/plain;
	name="LIVERDO.TXT"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Content-disposition: inline

The fact that the Liverpool dockers agreed to accept a pay off from the M=
ersey Docks and Harbour Corporation ( MDHC) which put a final point to a =
two years and  four months dispute deserves some explanations because qui=
te a lot of discussions were and are often going very far from the actual=
 class struggle.

To understand what was wrong in these comments we have to consider:
1) What was the real situation of this group of dockers usually called th=
e "Liverpool dockers"?
2) What was the real support they have got: a) from other dockers in the =
UK and in the world ?
                                                                         =
      b) from other workers in the UK and in the world ?
3) What was the position of the dockers 'union - the T& G ( TGWU), i.e. w=
hat was the function of a recognised big union in the UK, of a union in a=
 capitalist society ?

1) What was the real situation of this group of dockers working in the po=
rt of Liverpool , unusually called the  "Liverpool dockers" ?
Even if they worked in the same port - Liverpool - and belonged to the sa=
me union - T & G - they were    juridically and legally divided:
- 300 of them - old dockers - worked for a company  - the MDHC ( which al=
so owned and managed other ports in the UK, each port having been privati=
sed and belonging to one specific company). The situation and working con=
ditions were still linked to what remains from the NDLS ( National Dock L=
abour Scheme)  dismantled in 1989 after a lost national strike.
- 80 of them - new dockers - worked for another company - Torside - total=
ly distinct juridically from the MDHC
- more than 500 other port workers ( dockers, tug seamen, lorry drivers, =
maintenance workers,....) also worked in the Liverpool docks - some for t=
he MDHC, some for other companies, most of them members of the T&G union.

The "strike" started with Torside workers: five dockers of this company r=
efused to work overtime . They were immediately sacked. 15 other dockers =
of the same company stopped work immediately; they were also fired withou=
t delay. 60 remaining Torside were due to unload a cargo the day after: t=
hey refused to work as long as their work mates would stay fired. They we=
re all fired and then started altogether to picket the entrances of the p=
ort  . Out of 300 MDHC dockers , 60 crossed  the picket line , 240 not an=
d, in solidarity with Torside dockers, voted to strike. During the follow=
ing night the 240 were fired by the MDHC . When T&G union ordered them to=
 resume work - what they did - they were refused to enter in the port ( b=
ecause they were fired ) as the 60 of them having crossed the picket the =
day before could work " normally" along with the 500 other port workers w=
ho did not move at all to support the fired dockers.

We have to consider what was then the situation in the port in regard to =
 the present industrial laws in the UK, a situation which will be essenti=
al to understand how this conflict will develop:
- a wildcat strike is illegal and could be legally opposed by the employe=
r in firing the striking workers
- a solidarity strike ( wildcat or officially supported by a union) is il=
legal and could be legally opposed in firing the striking workers and wit=
h court decisions with heavy fines for the union (even their belongings s=
equestrated). If a court impose the end of the strike or forbid any other=
 action, the trespassers could be sentenced to prison.
- not crossing a picket is considered as an illegal solidarity strike and=
 a consequent vote without respecting the legal complicated procedure , f=
or instance in an assembly by show of hands, is also considered as an ill=
egal wildcat strike.
So the Torside and the MDHS  were legally perfectly right to sack success=
ively the 5 dockers , then the 15 and then the 240. If we consider this l=
egal situation , the "Liverpool dockers strike " was neither a strike, no=
r a lock out but a succession of legal collective firing by company actin=
g in total legality : it was the struggle of some 400 dockers for their r=
einstatement outside the place of work. I know some will say it is playin=
g with words. But this situation meant that without the support of the ot=
her dock workers , of all the other workers in Liverpool and elsewhere th=
ey have no means to influence the process of work in the Liverpool port a=
nd then to pressure on their employers.

2 What was the real support the fired dockers have got ?
a) from the other dockers in the UK and in the world ? The answer is : pr=
actically no actual support.
b) from the other workers in the UK or elsewhere ? The answer is: practic=
ally no actual support.
These answers as brutal as they are have to be explained.
What is support , real support , real solidarity ?
True support , true solidarity does not means finance contributing, demon=
strating, sending solidarity messages, spreading detailed information and=
 calls on Internet, token very limited strikes, all these things as impor=
tant as they could be are only a tiny part of solidarity but not at all a=
 true solidarity. We can call all that "virtual solidarity" not effective=
 solidarity.
True solidarity is what the Torside dockers did for 5 then 15 of them  , =
what most of the MDHC dockers did for the Torside dockers.
True solidarity is stopping work - in any manner, in any number, and for =
any time in such a way that the pressure on the capitalist or the threat =
of a larger pressure will be so that the capitalists will have to yield. =
It is what the Liverpool dockers were looking for but nothing of that hap=
pened and they could only go ahead with their struggle getting these "sec=
ondary" inefficient supports , hoping desperately that something will end=
ly move on the path of a true support.
True solidarity is a matter of balance of struggle . We can say that,  fr=
om the moment the sacking of most of the Torside and MDHC  Liverpool dock=
ers did not bring  a spontaneous spreading solid strike, the Liverpool do=
ckers were doomed to loose their fight as courageous and stubborn they we=
re and notwithstanding the widely spread "secondary" support they could h=
ave got all over the world.
Is it a dream? Not at all, such struggles happened in the past- in the UK=
 - years ago and even at a smaller scale recently during a postal strike.=
 But we have to recognise that nothing of that happened for the Liverpool=
 dockers and they had , at the end to agree with what they have proudly r=
ejected more than two years ago. We can read a lot of dythyrambic comment=
s  in the aftermath of this struggle , some of them accusing the unions a=
nd their leaders of not having done what they should have done.
Class struggle is the struggle of workers at first at their place of work=
, a struggle which threaten  for a time the possibility to exploit their =
work and to extract surplus value. If this possibility of pressure agains=
t the employers is missing, a struggle could be the struggle of a class a=
nd of quite a lot of people identifying themselves with the fight against=
 the capitalist system but who had no special mean to pressure at the hea=
rt of exploitation. So this struggle can be a substitute  for the struggl=
e of workers against their employer at their place of work but in no way =
it is a threat against exploitation of work. Which does not mean that suc=
h a substitute can have by its size or duration a certain political impac=
t, but this is another question with more questions for instance of the r=
ole of a vanguard of militants in true class struggle.

3) What was the position of the dockers' union T&G (TGWU), i.e. what was =
the function of a recognised big union in the UK, of a union in a capital=
ist society ?
It is evident that when firing the dockers the MDHC took a revenge of a l=
ong fight and use the situation ( perhaps it provoked it) to restructure =
the work in the port : 150 "new" dockers ( scabs)  making presently the w=
ork of 400, it was a great jump in productivity and in profits

The MDHC certainly thought - and it was right - not only that no risk of =
a true solidarity would change radically the balance of struggle. One has=
 to think that the Liverpool area is economically a very depressed  one (=
 the offer of 150 scab dockers job to break the struggle brought 1.000 ca=
ndidates) . MDHC also knew that not only the T&G union would have its han=
ds paralysed by the industrial laws, but also that it had certainly no in=
tent to give a true support to this struggle, certainly not displeased at=
 all  by this firing of disturbing people disobeying the law and  doing s=
omething revealing the real character and function of such an union . MDH=
C also knew of course that the government ( then conservative party ) wou=
ld do nothing to help the dockers and that the Labour taking the successi=
on in may 97 will follow the same path.

There was recently an exchange of letters in the "liberal " paper -the Gu=
ardian  about the role of the T&G union and especially about its leader B=
ill Morris. What the authors of two letters John Pilger and Mark Steel de=
veloped was about the question of a kind of "betrayal of T&G and of Morri=
s" having been at the end the cause of the climb down of the Liverpool do=
ckers".
John Pilger could write :"Their struggle was lost because the TGWU virtua=
lly guaranteed its failure " and Mark Steel discuss the role of "the mode=
rn union leader". Both of them and all people attacking the TGWU and othe=
r unions, or their leaders, or the Labour, etc. , for having let this str=
uggle isolated without true support  to the Liverpool dockers struggle, a=
ctually discover the moon.
They refuse to see what is the function of the union in a capitalist soci=
ety. In a certain way , Bill Morris was right when he wrote that the supp=
orters of the Liverpool dockers: with their message of false hope ....did=
 more than anyone to prolonge the agony". He was right but not on the way=
 he thought to be: most of the dockers' supporters , and certainly part o=
f the dockers themselves thought  it would be possible to oblige the TGWU=
 to be actively on the dockers' side and to give another size to their st=
ruggle, the size it lacked because of the lack of a true support from the=
 other dockers or workers in the UK. Bill Morris knew perfectly he would =
do nothing important for the Liverpool dockers, but as a union leader he =
had to behave as if he had the possibility to do so; it is part of its jo=
b and function to keep this illusion and so "the message of false hope " =
has to be shared on one hand by himself and the unions, on the other hand=
 by people having illusions on the role of the unions.

We have to be clear about this function of the unions: they do' nt exist =
to support workers struggles and not at all to impulse radical way of str=
uggle  ( and even less to think of a "revolutionary " way). Their functio=
n is to be intermediary between labour and capital as a regulator , event=
ually to bargain about working conditions, eventually to discipline the w=
orkers going "too far " in their struggles against exploitation of work. =
They are part of the capitalist system and will stay there in this functi=
on as long as the capitalist system will exist. Their leaders has become =
leaders not because they are the best tacticians or theoretician in the w=
orkers movement but because they  have the required qualities to perform =
this double face function; so is Bill Morris and in the Liverpool dockers=
 strike he has not betrayed anybody, he has only well realised what the s=
ystem was waiting from him.

The decline of the unions is not the consequence of some distortion of th=
eir role or/and of some distasteful leader ( they were exactly the same w=
hen the unions were prosperous or more powerful: their decline is only du=
e to the fact  that in the hard capitalist competition ( in attempts to r=
aise the falling rate of profit), the capitalists all over the world have=
 nothing else to offer than pain and tears; so the unions have nothing to=
 sell to the workers ( except holidays or insurance) because the employer=
s have nothing to propose in the bargain.

On the other hand, as organisations able to perform its function - a hier=
archical bureaucracy well established and connected to political and econ=
omic milieu ( an important part of their power) they have to protect them=
selves from all dangers. Class struggle is one of these dangers especiall=
y wildcat strikes ( even if occasionally they can use  "legal" control st=
rikes to support their power as regulators  in the production process). T=
heir present position in the system is only maintained if they can in all=
 circumstances bring the proof they have the ability to control the worke=
rs. Bill Morris - as a leader of the main UK union- is perfectly right  n=
ot to have taken the risk to ruin the TGWU  in supporting the illegal sol=
idarity action for an illegal strike: a union has to stay in the legal fr=
ame . It is sheer illusion to think  he ( and the union could have acted =
differently; if previously he would have had such a thought he would neve=
r have become the leader of the TGWU. As we have said above, he did not b=
etray anybody: involuntarily he betrayed only those who - full of illusio=
ns - thought that a union and its leaders could act differently, could be=
 "obliged"  by a rank and file pressure to act differently  , that a unio=
n could be "reformed" or transformed to play another role in class strugg=
le. A lot of people in the leftist groups or elsewhere think so, some ful=
l of good will, some others in order to " conquer " the bureaucracy of th=
e union as a political lever: the harsh reality imposed on the Liverpool =
dockers struggle show the narrow limits of their action. If only this cou=
ld bring their faithful supporters to think about their illusions and the=
ir consequences.
=09=09=09=09=09=09=09H.S. 2/98



--part0_887402479_boundary--


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---