I read Richard's message with interest, because, if it represents the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it marks a welcome change from the attitude toward the informal waterfront dockworkers contacts of 1994-5. Below is part of my account of this period, in which ITF General Secretary, Dave Cockcroft, and its Dockers' Secretary, Kees Marges, play a part, although then in other capacities. Corrections and comments are welcome:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1. Official union internationalism. The ITF had prepared carefully for the looming strike, sending out circulars to its dockers' and seafarers' affiliates as early as April 12. Between then and the end of the strike it sent out at least six such circulars. It also reported the efforts extensively in ITF News. On July 17, the ITF convened in London a meeting of its North Sea Ports group, consisting of dock officials from its Belgian, Dutch and German affiliates. These agreed a six-point declaration, including the following elements: unions would warn employers that accepting diverted cargoes could `endanger social peace'; unions would take all possible action, taking account of the `practical and legal situation' locally; priority would be given to whole cargoes from or to strike-hit ports in the UK; perishable goods would be handled normally; the ITF should receive and transmit all relevant information concerning ship movements and, finally:
...delegations of trade union officials or shop stewards from the UK to other countries should receive full cooperation from the unions concerned only where they have first been cleared by the TGWU and the ITF.1
--------------------------------
1. ITF Circular No 85/S.28/D.16, July 19, 1989.
--------------------------------
This last point was evidently addressed to the unofficial activity to be dealt with below. To judge by the Netherlands, however, the official approach of the ITF was taken seriously. Kees Marges, the Docks Secretary of the Dutch Transportworkers Union of the FNV (broadly social-democratic), approached both the port shopstewards (kaderleden) and the port employers. Whilst encouraging the Dutch dockers to give force to the ITF recommendations, he also warned against unofficial solidarity activities:
In order to ensure that so-called strike tourism does not show its face again (see the experiences with the [British] miners' and seamens' strike), and that, in this manner, uncoordinated actions take place that could bring both the TGWU and the continental unions in legal difficulties, the TGWU will, in a letter to all...Shop Stewards...urgently request that no visits to European ports be carried out on their own initiative. If and when possible, an attempt will be made to enable such visits to take place in an organised manner. (Vervoersbond 1989)
The polite letter to port employers apparently also had effect, with the Rotterdam port employers' association, SVZ, advising its members to avoid unloading diverted ships in the interest of social peace. Whilst recognising the end of the strike as a defeat for the British dockers, the ITF considered the solidarity effort to have been `remarkable' (ITF News, August 1989:11). Boycott action was reported from Rotterdam and Amsterdam in the Netherlands and from Antwerp in Belgium. Swedish dockers' and seafarers' unions, and the International Longshoremen's Association on the East Coast of the USA, were prepared for solidarity action.
2. The unofficial internationalism of the shopstewards. This effort was made by the National Ports Shop Stewards Committee of the T&GWU in the UK. Much of the activity came from Liverpool, where unions in general, the T&GWU, and the dockers in particular, have been involved over the years in a range of solidarity activity comparable to that of Barcelona. Mike Carden, one of the local shopstewards, has been to the Philippines for a conference on free trade zones (Liverpool has had a free port for some years), and to an international trade union school in Spain. He was also responsible for getting local leaflets translated into foreign languages for European distribution. Jimmy Nolan, a longtime leader of the Liverpool dockers and equally longtime Chairman of the NPSSC, was also an old friend of the Coordinadora [of Spanish dockworkers, unaffiliated to any national or international organisation - PW]. But the activity this time seems to have been organised by the British directly and without contact with the old network. Three London dockers went to Zeebrugge in Belgium and to the northern French ports. Three Liverpool men went to Antwerp, Rotterdam and Bremen. In Bremen they were hosted not by the local dockers but by BUKO, an anti-imperialist action group that - like the Liverpool dockers - has been involved in action against importation of Namibian uranium. In Rotterdam it appears that Kees Marges had obtained permission from the container company, ECT, for British TV men to film him addressing dockers - provided he was informing them of the situation and not calling them out on strike. The arrival of dockworker activists from Liverpool not only caused the ECT management to turn on the Dutch union but almost led to physical conflict between officials of the latter and the Liverpool dockers. It was evidently this incident that led to the warnings issued by the ITF and the VB-FNV. Whilst the latter organisations were clearly extremely annoyed by the unofficial activity, the Liverpool dockers were prepared to treat it as an unfortunate misunderstanding. At the ITF meeting in London, Jimmy Nolan made a point of expressing his appreciation to Marges. And Marges both reported this to his own members and incorporated a Liverpool leaflet (translated in Liverpool into a somewhat awkward Dutch) into his mailing to the Dutch shopstewards.
3. Evaluation. The British dock strike of 1989 shows well both the extent and the limits of official trade union internationalism. It implies activity carried out by or through national and international officials. It implies diplomatic caution and legal finesse in avoiding laws against solidarity strikes, and in then specifying particular ports, particular ships, particular cargoes - or even part cargoes - to be boycotted. It implies hostility to direct contact between dockworkers internationally, this only being conceivable with approval from above. The policy is one that the ITF officer responsible for dockworker unions is proud of:
[W]e did attempt (and succeed) in stopping some rank and file UK dockers running around and undoing the solidarity action that was being successfully organised by the Dutch union. I would do it again any time. Successful strikes are run by unions, not by ad hoc and often unrepresentative groups of shop stewards.2
---------------------------------------
2. Letter from David Cockroft, ITF, November 13, 1990.
---------------------------------------
Since it is registered under British law as a trade union, the ITF has to itself take care it does not breach the draconian British legislation on illegal strikes. The high profile recently adopted by the ITF on international solidarity seems to be much oriented toward the national and international media. Whilst this did lead to impressive TV and press coverage, we must note the price the Dutch union was prepared to pay for this. We must also ask ourselves whether the British dockers were right to feel so charitable toward a Dutch union leader who considered their efforts at creating worker to worker solidarity internationally `strike tourism'. Especially when one recalls that it was on the basis of such activity that the ITF was created in the first place (Aubry and Vermote 1983). Given the formalism, legalism, ideological/political bans, and the low priority apparently accorded dockers by the ITF (which may have been changing recently), it may be understandable that dockers have tried over a number of years to create their own informal network of international solidarity at waterfront level.
pw Institute of Social Studies, Jacob v.d. Doestr. 28 POB 29776 The Hague, POB 2518XN The Hague Netherlands. Netherlands Tel: +31-70-4260-579, Tel: +31-70-363-1539 Fax: +4260-799. [answering machine] Emb: waterman@iss.nl.
