Stan Whitehead wrote:
>
>
> Pleased to see that debate has commenced......
> Presumably Alan would condone 'illegal' action by capitalists
> at 'Labour' Laws designed to 'bring to heel' recalcitrant employers?

No, that presumption is wrong. I don't make a specious "logical" equivalence of this kind betweena law acting in the interests of the vast majority of people, those who sell their labour, and a law favouring the tiny minority who buy it.

> Here in the UK whatever the colour of the Ruling class in Parliament,
> at least the mass of the working population would acquiesce in the 'rule of
> law'....however reluctantly !

Don't I know it! I spent six years representing white-collar workers among whom this was very much the predominant view. I would certainly agree that there is no point in seeking to "mark a minus where the ruling class marks a plus" so stridently that you lose the support of members. However, there is scope for some member education, and I think that the current dispute gives excellent material for such education in that American and Canadian longshoremen are delivering support while British unions are unable to do so because of the laws against sympathy action, "unofficial" strikes, etc.

In any event, the point I was making is that the iTF is an international body, and as such need not be any more restrained by British legislation than are the American and Canadian longshoremen.

> This feeling of the population ,we ignore at our peril.It has meant a
> looooong time
> sitting on the fence of 'opposition'....impotent.!

I'm not a member of the Labour Party, and consequently am indifferent to the number of seats in Parliament that that body gets, beyond a vague feeling that I would rather not be kicked in the teeth, but if I must, I would rather the person kicking me identifies himself honestly as my enemy, rather than pretending to be my friend.

> It seems to me as if 'academic support for the Dockers is of little use and
> will not result in a positive outcome for them.

I'm not quite sure just what this means. Certainly, an e-mail from such as me, the lowest of God's academic creatures, isn't going to win the dispute.

> Practical support from the 'brotherhood' will also not easily be
> forthcoming whilst the perceived 'illegality' of the action continues.

The practical support comes in the main from outside the UK. But the "perceived 'illegality'" cannot now be rectified by retrospective action. For most of the dockers, this is not in the strict sense a strike. They were sacked for refusing to cross a picket line. It is a purely defensive action, seeking to regain jobs. The problem of 'illegality' doesn't seem to bother North American dockers, who seem to have a pretty firm grasp of what the issue is, despite coming from a union tradition which is in the main further right than the British Labour Party. Maybe the academic becomes useful in examining why these differences in outlook exist between North American and British workers.

Alan Harrison