space for shared experiences and democratic discussion of alternatives to the capitalist model of development and way of life. At the same time the antiglobalisation movement has brought people together in huge protests against the corporate capitalist world and the bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and World Bank whose policies they entorce. In campaigning to put people and planet before profit the issue of climate change has always been a part of these movements On December 3, in Montreal signatories to the Kyoto Treaty will meet to discuss future action on global warming. Blair's talks in London were an attempt to upstage this The Campaign against Climate Change has organised an International Day of Protest to coincide with these talks, and already demonstrations, marches, rallies and other protests have been organised in twenty six different countries, and the number is growing fast.
They include Australia, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Romania, Turkey and the Bigger cuts Roger Welch, Portsmouth The Gate Gourmet dispute in the summer once again brought to the fore the whole issue of the Tory antiunion laws, which have largely been kept in place by the Blair government.
Ever since the defeat of the miners in 1985 these laws have constituted shackles on the ability of workers to take effective strike action to defend and further their interests. The only way in which these shackles can be totally shattered is through mass industrial action against the law of the sort that took place in 1972 to free the Pentonville Five, imprisoned under the Tory Industrial Relations Act.
Then such action could be organised unofficially through the shop stewards' movement. Today, requires sections of the trade union leadership being prepared to call on their members to take action in defiance of the law. As the Gate Gourmet dispute itself demonstrates, union leaders have not been prepared to call such action.
The dispute both illustrates both how the law works to prevent effective industrial action and how it can be used by the media to action has mystify what is actually going on.
All the talk of 'wildcat' illegal action was used to Completely disguise the fact that all the Gate Gourmet workers had done was to attend a mass meeting in working time to 1990. protest at the company's decision to bring in 130 seasonal workers at a time when existing workers were under the threat of redundancy.
The company's response was to dismiss these workers when they refused to return to work at the end of a threeminute warning.
Workers on a later shift were dismissed when, having heard of the sackings of their sisters and brothers, they refused to come into work.
With echoes of the Grunwicks dispute of the 1970s, when largely Asian workers were sacked after being provoked into taking industrial action (which at the time Was actually lawful), the Gate Gourmet bosses were then able to get a court injunction to prevent effective picketing against the use of scab labour.
The most publicised and attacked aspect of the dispute was of course the spontaneous unofficial sympathy strike action by the BA baggage handlers. In situations like Gate Gourmet (of which there have been too many over the last 20 years) workers who have been sacked are not strong enough on their own to force their employers to reinstate them.
Only sympathetic action by other workers can achieve this. However, such action has been completely unlawful since 1990.
The term 'unlawful' in this context does not mean that workers or their union have been guilty of any sort of crime, but that they are in breach of civil law because of breaking employment contracts or encouraging or persuading others to do so.
But it is this technical breach of law, which in other contexts such as professional football goes on all the time (think Ashley Cole etc), that enables the media, bosses and politicians to denounce unions for acting illegally.
In turn this leads to demands such as calling for leaders of unofficial action, so-called secondary action and so on to be prosecuted, even although it is only the civil, and not the criminal, law that has been broken.
The way in which this type of legal mystification can percolate into the public consciousness is shown by recent episodes of Coronation Street.
Quite possibly I am the only reader sad enough to watch Corrie, but a few weeks back non-unionised workers in the local sweatshop went on strike when one of the workers was sacked because she got stroppy about her boss having an adulterous affair with her daughter.
The strikers were then told they were acting illegally because they had not had a secret ballot and had not given seven days notice before going on strike. These legal controls on strike action do exist, but they only apply to trade unions not workers - be they union members or as in the case of the 'Corrie Strikers' have no union to represent them.
However, there are now millions of people in the country who believe, wrongly, that this type of mousta aco s aful.
With respect to the sympathy action taken by the BA baggage handlers, whilst it is the case that such action is unlawtul, it is also the case that the law itself is contrary to a higher form of law, that IS, international law as contained in the Conventions of the International Labour organisation.
In fact, British governments have for years ignored denunciations by the ILO of much of the antiunion laws as being in breach of international law.
At the last TUC it was agreed to campaign for a Trade Union Freedom Bill drafted by the Institute of Employment Rights.
This very simple Bill requires the Government to repeal all those aspects of the present law, including the prohibition of all forms of sympathy action, which violate the ILO Conventions.
As trade union militants we are for the repeal of all the anti-union laws and support any action, lawful or not, that can help bring this about. Nevertheless, given that it would be a major advance on the current legal position, in the here and now we should take seriously and support all efforts to get the TUC to campaign effectively for the Trade Union Freedom Bill.