>It's nice that Richard Flint is willing to engage in a friendly dialogue.It
>would be even nicer if he would speak the truth.
But if he were really intent on the truth he would have to say:
"Dockers of the World unite to destroy the exploitative capitalist system - occupy your ports and call a world-wide general strike for industrial freedom!"
>Kevin Brandstatter is mainly concerned with more general issues of principle
>and has my sympathy, but I would like to comment on his impression that the
>Liverpool dockers have relied on the T&GWU to use the ITF, with predictable
>results. Quite the opposite.
If that is how my hurried message read then it was not meant to be so.
>The dockers made extensive direct contacts at rank and file as well as
>official levels with ports trading with Liverpool, seeking industrial action
>independently of the T&GWU or ITF. Kevin might wish that all ports were
>organised by maritime unions controlled by their own rank and file, who were
>committed internationalists and would take action as soon as they heard the
>word from Liverpool. Fine. But the dockers have had to fight in the
>situation they actually confront today.
I do wish that all ports were organised by a single transnational union, not individual national maritime unions. I sincerely believe that this is the only way to respond to transnational capital. Yes, the dockers are in a bind and face enormous odds, including a trade union movement which is seemingly unable to mount any solidarity action because of a fear of court action.
>In reality, many of the key unions are ITF affiliates. There are ports like
>Sydney where the ITF affiliated Maritime Union of Australia has been
>prepared to act without hesitation. But this is not true everywhere. In some
>ports, the attitude of the ITF is critical to the response that the union
>structures make to requests for action. The members, who are mainly not
>revolutionaries, want to know that their existing union will defend them if
>they get sacked after boycotting trade with Liverpool.
I am sure it suits trade union officials at national level to be involved in international clubs, they get to travel the world at members expense, and appear on the international stage. Let us not forget however that the origins of many of these international bodies lie in the cold war with the CIA being responsible for a number of international trade union bodies in order to provide an effective anti communist labour front. The PSI (Public Services International) is a very good example of this. I have seen nothing to persuade me that bodies such as the ITF are not tainted in the same way.
>If the ITF is handing unions a good excuse to avoid industrial action, the
>Liverpool dockers can not respond merely by wishing they had an
>organisational alternative which would take years to construct. Conversely,
>the Liverpool fight is one of many that will have to be won in order that an
>effective international dockers alliance, let alone an international
>maritime union, can be formed in reality rather than simply imagined.
There are other considerations to take into account regarding this dispute. Firstly remember that the Port of Liverpool is the last unionised part in Britain. Why? Because the traditional forms of social democratic unionism failed miserably in 1989 when the Government attacked the docks. If my memory serves me right it was the TGWU which caved in and encouraged its own shop stewards to go to an IT rather than continue fighting after they were sacked. Yes they won the case - but how many are still on the dole? Are ANY in docks work? The defeat in 1989 saw the end of union organisation throughout the ports of Britain. It seems to me that success in Liverpool can only be achieved by spreading the action and upping the stakes in the dispute. Even if the Port of Liverpool were shut down what is there to stop the trades bringing their ships to any of the nonunion casualised ports in Britain? I am certain the TGWU would try to block any picketing of non Liverpool ports in this situation, and I am not sure that 400 sacked workers could do much physically to tie up international shipping - may be it is something the rest of us should turn our minds to...
The creation of a transnational union is not as difficult as all that and setting up the structures are also relatively simple. The IWW is a perfect model and ran a transnational maritime union in the 1920s, which operated in the Americas, New Zealand, Australia and had port memberships in Germany, South Africa and in Britain. Its Office was in Chile and the union continued to exist until the coup against Allende in 1973, which resulted in the office being razed and the members "disappeared".
The major problem, I would suggest, of getting such an organisation off the ground, is the rigid mind set which most trade unionists have fallen into:
Obviously the only way any transnational workers organisation will ever develop is if people promote the idea, others take a little bit of time to think about it, and all those who agree with the idea work towards it as an end.
I am sure however that once workers start to plan for such eventualities organisations such as the ITF will do their level best to sabotage any developments.
In solidarity
Kevin Brandstatter
