Since the 70s, they have done more harm than good

ARE THERE A NEED FOR trade unions in the 21^st century within the most advanced Western countries? In the 19^th century and the first half of the 20^th; there was only one answer in the affirmative. Today and since the 1970s trade unions have been making themselves obsolete by their abuse of power – even during the war London Dockers went on strike: it was a political strike aimed at slowing down the allied advance into Germany; thus buying time for the Soviet Union to reach Berlin before the allies – which means that now my answer would be no.

                

                In the 1970s, there was industrial anarchy that almost brought the kind of ruin on this country the Greek people are facing today. The union shop stewards at what was then British Leyland, struck at the drop of the hat over the most infantile and immature of reasons. The Fred Kites ruled the roost. Productivity slumped and the cars produced were little better than the Travant which their union brother's in East Germany at the time were producing.

                

                During this decade British industry suffered a drought of productivity brought about by militant trade unionism. We became known as a nation as 'the sick man of Europe ', yet our politicians continued to appease the trade unions – I believe that like cigarettes in the modern era, unions should now come with a health warning.

WHEN THE REMEDY for such union anarchy was found; the woman who provided it was demonised by liberal Britain. Margaret Thatcher brought in a package of industrial legislation that penalised the unions for wild cat strikes, and more importantly rid industry of the infamous closed shop that allowed unions a say in who could or could not be employed depending on their union membership and family connection.

                

                In many of this nation's docks, the closed shop meant that the hereditary principle worked for fathers, sons, and grandsons, who were given preference over any 'outsiders' when a job opening appeared on the docks in, at the time, a much prized and lucrative industry. An industry where the unions, whose members worked the cranes at our ports, had the power to disrupt the traffic of ships from unloading their cargoes: and the unions lost little opportunity to hold their employers to ransom, knowing that they would quickly buckle under any threat to stop unloading ships; ships who were also working to a deadline; and who had to return to another port for another load of vital imports. So until Thatcher came along our economy was constantly under the blackmail of the unions

TODAY WE still have examples of such rigid behaviour from the unions. But it materialises not from the private but the public sector unions. The London underground is seeking to keep their lines open throughout the night. Those driving the underground trains earn £50,000 per annum; they work a 35 hour week, and have 40 days off a year; they earn more than a hospital doctor, who has invested five years or more at university in order to understand complex medical procedures.

                

                The unions today remain arrogantly powerful; but more so in the public rather than the private sector. Today thousands of London commuters are being left (effectively) stranded by the rail unions. It is no accident that the unions pick the most inopportune times to call a strike. They will say of course, as they do at every holiday period, including Christmas, that it is mere coincidence that they have chosen a date to do the maximum of damage to the public.

                        

                 It is no coincidence that the current walkout disrupts those affluent middle classes enjoying a day at Wimbledon (the union's class enemies). Sympathy for the unions is draining away fast. The public service unions today resemble the behaviour of their comrades during the 1970s, from whom they seem to have inherited the full class war hatred and spite of their socialist predecessors.

                

                 Banning unions is not only undemocratic but pointless. But what any government could and should do is what Margaret Thatcher did and must look again at union legislation (especially after winning a majority last May), to see what can be done to reign in such brattish behaviour by union leaders. The men may be seeking better working conditions but their leaders are behaving politically. Their agenda is attacking and undermining a Tory government; there is no excuse for this action as the employers have said no one will be made to work through the night.

                

                 The unions are losing their cache of sympathy among the British public; and if the union leaders carry on their class war with their employers and Tory governments, then the latter may bite back as it did in the 1980s, and will weaken them even further. The age of steam and the Left's prototype capitalist with his top hat and carrying a rich-living paunch, while smoking a fat cigar, no longer appears on the public radar.

               

                 Above I mentioned the slothfulness of the British car workers in the 1970s, and the weakness of their managers to do anything about them; and the cravenness of the politicians towards the union bosses at the time: the wild cat strikes that the all powerful shop stewards were able to call and the weakness of their trade union leaders in trying to discipline them. Not only productivity but quality fell short and impacted upon sales, only to be bailed out by public money through nationalisation - this noun has caused more harm to this country's economy Hitler.

                 But today our car industry's performance is among the very best in the world and due purely to the efforts of British workers, who wish to live the dream; their dream and not that of union leaders; as was the case 40 years ago. The malaise within the car industry that existed then has been turned around by its workers. Their dream is, maybe, to own their own home and bring up a family – and this is the best of all motives to enthuse them.

THATCHER to this day is loathed and despised by the Left. But she turned the economy around, and even Labour under the banner of New Labour had to accept the inevitable - that unions had been a drag anchor on technological progress if it meant losing members to technological innovation. All we have to do is look at the printing industry when computerisation overtook the lead typeface; it resulted in the battle of Grunwick, where the satanic presence of (from the union's view point) Rupert Murdock sought to bring the publishing industry into the modern age. But if this age meant redundancies, then the unions were Full Square against then. The print unions had had it all their own for so long: their over mighty power had made editors and publishers kow-tow to the various shop stewards.

                

                 But Murdock would have none of it – thus the battle of Grunwick, where Murdock locked out the print unions. History was on Murdock's side. But this wily and brash Australian not only saved his own publications but the publications in Fleet Street as a whole at the time – but he received little gratitude for his efforts.

                

                 When in the 19^th and the first half of the 20^th century unions were indispensable, they deserved the support they gained, including from me a one-time Marxist. But today they have outlived any need – and when that need reappears under capitalism; I will support it.