The British Wildcat Strikes

by Eric Lee

Eric Lee

The recent wave of wildcat strikes by British construction workers at the Lindsey Oil Refinery in North Lincolnshire is taking place against the background of the most severe economic crisis the country has faced since 1945.

Economists are predicting that the British economy will fare worse than those in other major industrialized countries, with soaring unemployment. The European Commission predicts that the U.K. economy will shrink by 2.8% this year.

Thousands of workers across the country’s industrial heartland have a genuine fear of losing their jobs.

They are convinced that government is not on their side — and the refusal of any of the major political parties to support them in the current crisis has not helped.

A week of protests now seems to be drawing to a close as a union-brokered agreement guarantees the hiring of local workers.

One cannot understand what happened here without understanding the role of the unions.

According to a report by the BBC’s Paul Mason, the “spontaneous” strikes actually had their origin in web-based discussions among shop stewards in the giant Unite trade union. (Unite is a merger of the Transport and General Workers Union and Amicus, a largely white-collar union.) Mason found evidence that Unite committed funds to supporting strikes which were probably illegal.

Under Britain’s repressive, Thatcher-era anti-union laws — which after 12 years in power the Labour government has not got around to repealing — unions are forbidden to engage in strikes of this kind. Strikes can never be quickly called. Instead, they require postal ballots of the members. The unions — including the giant blue-collar union GMB — were therefore forced to pretend that they had nothing to do with the walk-out.

The unions were therefore placed in the role of mediators, brokering a deal with the employer to end the dispute.

But the unions played another and perhaps more important role.

As the dispute centered on Total hiring Italian and Portuguese construction workers, it was inevitable that xenophobia and racism would become factors. Workers were concerned that the imported workers were being paid less.

The first protestors appeared with signs quoting Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s unfortunate 2007 call for “British jobs for British workers”.

The far-right British National Party (BNP) quickly appeared on the scene, attempting to turn the protests to their advantage.

It created a front group — “British WildCats Strike Support Collective” — and a website to support the strikers.

The BNP has long sought to establish a presence in the trade unions, but without much success so far.

Its attempt to create an alternative, white British union called “Solidarity” never got off the ground. A number of BNP members have been expelled from their unions. Unionized postal workers have on occasion refused to deliver BNP election material to homes.

The unions involved on the ground — both Unite and the GMB — realized the danger and took steps to focus the protests on traditional trade union goals of job security rather than racist slogans.

The “British Jobs for British Workers” slogan was replaced by something more politically correct.

The GMB and Unite are unions which have long campaigned against the BNP, and which fund and support the big national campaigns against the far Right — both “Hope, Not Hate” and “Unite Against Fascism”.

The Italian unions issued a statement that both expressed their understanding of the hardships faced by the protesting British workers, but also their concerns about xenophobia. They said that “what’s going on in Lincolnshire is one of the ugliest pages in the history of the trade union movement in these globalised times: English workers against Italian workers.”

The far Left in Britain was divided by the strikes.

The Socialist Workers Party opposed them, saying “We can’t let ourselves be divided by racism or nationalist sentiment.” Ironically, that is not a phrase the SWP would use when talking about the recent fighting in Gaza, where they were happy to promote divisions along racial and national lines.

But the Socialist Party (formerly the Militant Tendency) was involved in the strike committee, and helped steer the strikers away from xenophobia towards more traditional trade union demands. “This isn’t a racist strike,” one of their spokespeople said. “This is a basic strike for trade union rights.”

They managed to persuade the strikers to agree to call for unionization of immigrant labour, union assistance for immigrant workers (including interpreters), and the building of links to unions elsewhere in Europe.

Meanwhile, Labour Party leaders turned on the strikers in a way guaranteed to reduce even further white working class support for the party.

Labour cabinet minister Peter Mandelson, who is detested by many trade unionists for his role in turning the party away from its working-class roots, led the charge denouncing the workers. Gordon Brown called the strikes unjustified.

With European elections coming up in June, unions are very concerned that in a worsening economic climate, white working-class voters will turn toward the BNP. The BNP has never won a European seat, nor does it have any representatives in the British Parliament.

In a sense, this wave of wildcat strikes has been a test both for the unions and for the party they founded and continue to fund.

While the unions tried to play a constructive role, both as mediators and reducing the threat of xenophobia among the workers, the Labour Party leaders tried to pander to the right-wing tabloid press by condemning the workers for being irresponsible and racist.

Unless Labour can re-connect the white working class and repair its relationship with the trade unions, the BNP will almost certainly grow.

Eric Lee is the founding editor of LabourStart.