A number of unions have paper positions against the trade union laws, but in general these have been restricted simply to calling for repeal, and have consequently proved ineffective in practice. The laws are only likely to be defeated through action on the ground. The kind of action that will work will differ in different sectors and unions. In some cases, notably among post office workers, it has been possible to bypass the laws by taking unofficial action, which has been successful in a number of cases. When the courts ruled against NATHE over balloting procedures in 1993 a number of branches defied the ruling and took action. Such strikes should be publicised as much as possible throughout the trade union movement in order to show that the law can be defied without the sky falling in. However, a really significant challenge to the antiunion laws will have to involve more general action, big enough to effectively dely them and bring them into disrepute. Over the last few years a number of strikes have gone down to defeat because effective solidarity action has been stifled by legal means. For example, the heroic Burnsall strike in Birmingham lasted a year, but was lost largely because fear of the law discouraged union leaders from calling for either effective picketing or solidarity boycotts of Burnsall's products. At the time of writing, the Liverpool dockers have received magnificent support through solidarity action in Greece and the USA, among other countries. But fellow TGWU workers in Britain have been prevented from following suit by the anti-union laws.
The impact of just one successful challenge to these laws in which action is taken to support such strikes would be tremendous. A central task in the trade unions in the coming period will be to create the conditions where such action can be taken.
The struggle for union recognition and against derecognition is intimately bound up with the campaign against the anti-union laws. Changes in the composition of the workforce pose a challenge to the unions. But there is no inevitability about their effect on union membership. In the past the unionisation of new areas, in mass industries such as the docks in the 1880s and
in 'white collar' areas in the 1960s, has strengthened the whole morement. This can happen again, but is much more likely to succeed if organised workers are able to take action in support of those fighting to maintain or establish organisation. Some unions, notably the NUJ, have been involved in a number of important disputes over derecognition. But many such disputes, such as the three year strike at Pergamon Press against Robert Maxwell, have been defealed because they have remained relatively isolated and have not been spread to other workplaces. This pattern, dating back at least to the battles at Wapping in the mid-1980s, has to be broken if the trend to derecognition is to be halled. A common response among trade unionists to the employers" offensive is to look to legal protection for union rights, for example rights of recognition, and to institutional structures. In particular, many have looked to Europcan legislation and to the 'Social chapter' of the Maastricht Treaty, especially its provisions for European Works Councils. While the British government has opted out of this part of the treaty, many international companies operating in Britain are setting up works councils. Some people have counterposed the campaign for positive rights for trade unions to the fight against the anti-union laws. But the struggle for union rights cannot be separated from the campaign against the current laws. Only in a situation of a high level of union activity can the government and employers be forced to agree to positive guarantees of union rights, and if activity drops they will certainly attempt to limit, and eventuall! remove, any such rights granted. Inasmuch as the anti-union laws represent a major obstacle to such activity, the fight against them is a precondition for any struggle over a positive framework for union rights.
The importance of concentrating on building action within the unions, rather than relying on legal protection, is even more important when considering the issue of works councils. In a situation of strong union organisation and influence, such councils may provide a useful way of obtaining information about company strategies and building international links. However, in the context of the employers' offensive, they are much more likely to demobilise struggles. The information provided to council delegates is often subject 1o rules of confidentiality, leading to what are effectively secret negotiations outside of union structures. The councils can then be used by management to bypass the unions, and so function as part of the institutional backup to the New Management Techniques. Given this, if such councils are introduced it is crucial for unions to demand that they are not used as a substitute for existing negotiating machinery and that the information provided to such councils is made available to all workers.