from Richard Flint, ITF Comms (in a personal capacity)
I guess I should respond to what Chris Bailey and Peter Waterman have said. I am aware that this is a general trade union mailing list not solely devoted to questions relating to the Liverpool strike and I don't want to bore people with too many technical or internal discussions. But I do think that there are some general union related points that arise from this debate which I will try to address.
First of all to contradict what I just said, I am afraid I must address the point about the international conference. Chris Bailey says "merely that the ITF sent an e-mail, not a fax" i.e. that we did say what he claims, this would have been a very sneaky thing to say. When I said that no one from the ITF send a fax or made a phonecall, I could have easily added or an e-mail. Let me be categorical here because we are being accused of some duplicity. There has been no message sent by the ITF as claimed by Chris Bailey.
Furthermore the message he refers to, which he states was from "an individual in a European port", did not come from the ITF. Something strange is going on here because we can categorically state that this message did not originate from the ITF. Furthermore I should ask the dockers and their friends to question why such a message has been fabricated and also to look at where it came from.
I must admit that I am a little confused as to the fact that Chris appears to be referring to circulars in French. I should explain that there are in fact very few European dockers' unions who communicate with the ITF in French. The main dockers' union in France, the CGT, is not affiliated to the ITF though we sincerely hope they will join us in the future. It is fair to say that we co-operate on many projects with the CGT. The circulars that are quoted in Chris Bailey's message do accurately reflect the ITF's position at the time.
I should make it clear that our position (which was also the position of the Transport & General Workers' Union) was that no solidarity action should take place while we were awaiting the results of the dockers' ballot on a company offer. It is true that the dockers' mass meeting had rejected the offer by show of hands, but the ITF and TGWU wanted to wait for the results of the ballot. When those results came in, we communicated this to our affiliates and requested further support. We could have an argument about mass meetings versus ballots, but I am sure people will understand, particularly outside the UK, this debate is a non-starter.
Finally is true that our position at this point is a strong appeal for negotiations. The latest message states that no such negotiations are taking place. I hope everyone understands that any kind of victory can only happen upon some kind of compromise and negotiation. This does not mean that we do not "really support" the Liverpool dockers. It just means that as trade unionists we are seeking a trade union response.
Now if people will excuse me, I would like to get a bit philosophical about this issue. Trade unions have to work with compromises and negotiations if they are ever to achieve anything. This may upset ideological purists, but if it does -- too bad. In the last century there was a debate in the International Workingmen's Association between Lasalle, Marx and Syndicalists about trade union action. Specifically, Lasalle came up with a daft theory entitled "the iron law of wages" which argued that any pay increase won by the workers would disappear automatically as a result of inflation. This is obviously incorrect, but it highlights a radical position that refuses to accept that anything short of full-blown global revolution can achieve anything. In fact, you need only look at the significant advances in wages and working conditions achieved by workers everywhere to appreciate the value of trade union action. In my personal opinion, the vast majority of social improvements in the last century have been won as a direct result of mass action by the trade unions and their allies. In fact, the irony of these victories is that it was often revolutionaries who achieved the most substantial reforms.
Anyway, I think we must remember that trade unions themselves and their international structures are crucial to making any change. I personally do not believe that vanguard political parties or spontaneous mass action work or have ever done.
Now onto the submission from Peter Waterman which, in fact, is largely accurate. While I must disagree with Peter's conclusions, I think he has got his facts right. Those of you who have been around, will know that Peter and I have disagreed in public about this issue before. It is fair to say that, as Peter points out, the ITF is trying to be more active in dockers questions. The creation of full-time Dockers' Secretary Kees Marges (from the Rotterdam dockers) is, I believe, a significant indication of this commitment. The incident that Peter describes which happened during the national UK dockers' strike is still something Kees remembers with rage. Effectively, as Peter explains the disorganised and foolish intervention from representatives of the UK dockers (trade union tourists in every sense of the word) actually damaged the practical solidarity action that the Dutch dockers were organising. This is the centre of our argument. Unco- ordinated, independent action can all too easily undermine real trade union work. Unfortunately, too many people are romantically attached to the concept of rank and file purity and they automatically assume that all trade union leaders and all trade union internationals are run by heartless right- wing bureaucrats intend on selling out the workers at every junction. The world just is not like that and all generalisations are false. There are bad bureaucrats and heroic rank and file workers and the opposite exists as well. But ultimately, we need to focus on the fact that trade unions themselves are good things. They are democratic in theory and practice and if you are unhappy with the leadership you can work to change it. Naturally trade unions have formed international organisations like ours to do a certain job which is not always very easy, but which requires some understanding and sympathy and also an appreciation of the fact that solidarity and support are not automatic and that national, ethnic and linguistic divisions still exist and need to be addressed by people who know what they are doing.
Richard Flint
More information about the ITF can be found on our Web page at:
http://www.itf.org.uk
