The government is introducing a new anti-union Bill which will impose postal balioting for strike ballots. There is already an unprecedented host of laws which make even legal strike action difficult. One of the factors in management moving to a Business structure was undoubtedly the fact that legislation outlaws solidarity action by workers outside a Business in which strike action is taking place. Across industry in general the employers took advantage of this legislation by splitting their companies into formally separate businesses. Under a privatised railway this obstacle would be even more deeply entrenched. Recent events in Manchester have shown the significance of the last piece of legislation passed in 1990. The guards refused to take out trains when they discovered that the local management was breaking an agreement over using trainee drivers on guards duties. The four members of the LDC were instantly sacked for 'gross misconduct and 'inciting' their members to break their contracts of employment. As a result the guards came out on strike, setting up picket lines.
Union officials persuaded them to go back to work pending a ballot for strike action. Yet the ballot was not for the reinstatement of the sacked men, but over the breaking of an agreement. Under the 1990 Act a union cannot strike in support of sacked representatives who have been involved in unofficial action. The union has to "repudiate" unofficial action. This Mr Knapp did. Moreover, the Act gives the right to employers to selectively sack strikers.
Previously they had to treat everybody in the same way. When the ballot lor action took place it was won by two to one. Instead of all out action however, the union announced a single day's strike. They suspended this when the management said that the sacked men could have appeals - very benevolent! These they lost, and the union reinstated the action. The BRB then went to the court to have an injunction called against the strike under the 1990 Act. This they won and the union leadership effectively abandoned the sacked men.
Even within the confines of working, within the law, the union leadership was inept. By suspending action pending the appeals they gave ample evidence to the court that the strike was actually over the sacking of the men and not over the management breaking an agreement!
There are, of course, whispered words within the union, especially within Unily House, that the problem was the taking of unofficial action which was the result of "ultra-lefts" on the LDC. Obviously it does not really matter that they were sacked then, so far as some bureaucrats are concerned In reality this experience shows that it is impossible to defend our reps and indeed to fight for the general interests of the members without challenging the anti-union laws. Union officials say this is impossible because it would only lead to our "assets" being seized by the courts. This is clearly a danger. But as one of the sacked guards said at a recent meeling "our assets have become our liabilities". • The bricks and mortar, the money in the bank (including, needless to say, the means of paying the wages of the bureaucrats) are placed above the interests of the members. They have become an end in themselves, at the service of the interests of the full-time officials and not at the service of the members.
If the union cannot defend its representatives against victimisation, as in Manchester, then it does not matter what "assets" it has, its decline (which is reflected in a financial crisis largely the result of loss of members) will continue. Why should members put their necks on the line, to be chopped off by management, if the union is not prepared to defend them?
Challenging, the anti-democratic anti-union laws is necessary if we are to defend our members and to strive for
unity of our ranks, or else there will not be in the future an "all grades" movement.