Trade union militancy is on the T increase Worker in oceanor.
ernment, the London Underground and railways have all taken action. Postal workers. have voted to strike against privatisation. London bus workers are discussing action. In Scotland, after the victories by Glasgow medical secretaries, other NHS staff and Sodexho workers have won wage increases.
The fire fighters have voted to strike for a 40% wage increase by a remarkable nine-to-one majority. The action ordered (though now partially suspended for negotiations) was a total of 36 days over twomonth period. This would be more extensive than any national action for a many years. On top of this the RMT said that its members could not be expected to work without fire safety cover. This would pose the closure of all or part of the rail industry and a major escalation of the action.
If concessions on wages are not forthcoming, then confrontation with the govemment is still posed, with further strikes still called by the FBU, beginning on November 6.
Blair has responded by vowing that the fire fighters will be defeated. The goverment has set up an emergency committee and called in the army to prepare to break the strike.
What is the significance of these developments within the wider picture of the future of the trade union movement? Do they represent a breakout from the movement's deep crisis of the early 1990s when union membership was halved and strikes were at a historically low level? Or are they a very welcome surge of action within that restricted framework?
The new wave of militancy clearly has some limitations. It is largely confined to the public and some privatised sectors, often where workers are in monopolytype industries, such as rail workers and fire fighters.
For many workers in competitive action and effective trade unionism remains extremely difficult. In manufacturing, the old social partnership idea of 'don't put the company in jeopardy' still rules. Often, when workers want to take action, it is stridently opposed by the unions. In the unions it is no longer an electoral asset to be a supporter of New Labour -quite the reverse .....
As a result, the employers' offensive remains largely unchecked. Militants get victimised, working conditions are changed and workers are made redundant at the employers' will. These constraints limit the type of spontaneous militancy that was the driving force of trade union struggle during the 1960s.
Even in the rail industry, one of the best organised, activists are still picked off. This is the case in South West Trains, despite the strike action in support of Greg Tucker and his resounding victory at industrial tribunal. Most strikes, with the notable example of the Sodexho workers and now the fire fighters, have been limited to one or two days.
This situation is reflected in union recruitment and membership. After 1996, with the reduction in unemployment, the dedine in membership was hatted, and to some extent reversed. However, the increased membership only mirrored the rise in employment.
Last year, union membership declined by about 50,000, and with it union density. This is mostly due to the continued decline in manufacturing industry (now only 14% of the work force) and the relative failure of the organising drive by the unions in other sectors.
The fire fighters' dispute, if it goes ahead, has the potential to become a beacon around which other workers could be inspired and gain confidence. A fire fighters' victory would galvanise other sectors.
And importantly, there is also a wider, political, process going Lon, which, linked to higher levels of strike action, can create the conditions for a turning point. This has its roots in the relationship between the unions and New Labour and opens up a range of possibilities for stiffening up resistance to the employers, strengthening the unions, and regenerating militant trade unionism.
The process is best reflected in recent elections for top officials, and the emergence of the so-called 'awkward squad. The most important examples are Bob Crow and Pat Sikorski (RMT), Mark Serwotka (PCS), Derek Simpson (Amicus), and Jeremy Dear (NUJ). Others who are not part of the old mould are Mick Rix (ASLEF), Billy Hayes (CWU) and Andy Gilchrist (FBU).
IT'S TIME TO
vire
ASERVICE Ance
PINCIEN LONDON REI LONEC toral machine. His replacement, Derek Simpson, is not a part of the hard left - but he is already talking of renegotiating many of the no-strike deals negotiated by Sir Ken.
Two years ago, social partnership embraced virtually the whole of the trade union movement.
It was the industrial reflection of Blairism, itself the political reflection of the defeats of the 1980s. Most of the 'awkго зє вий вв sl
10 WAI in the past. Even Bill Morris has challenged New Labour on racism, even though his union implements partnership in many work places.
This rupture, or partial rupture, in the relationship with Blairism is generating a sea change in attitude towards the political fund. Alienated by New Labour's relentless move to the right, its close relationship with big business and its attacks on the public services, trade union activists resent the fact that the party has continued to receive financial and political support from the unions.
Debates have opened about the democratisation and diversification of the political fund. The GMB has cut its pay-