Trade Unions no labour dinosaurs

This particular individual seems to have an obfuscated perception, devoid of any inkling of correct historical analysis.

His reference to labour, employer and government as stakeholders in the “labour justice system” is based on a perception devoid of class analysis or class realities. As any student of sociology will tell you, society consists of classes.

Trade unions do not have to apologise to anyone for its role as a defender of the interests of workers both within the workplace as well as in the broader society.

Trade unions therefore are much more than mere stakeholders.

The labour movement is the most dynamic sector of society and its historical mission should not be confused or limited to its handling of industrial relations matters.

The description of trade unions as bellicose reflects the unwise application of an extremely wide brush to describe trade union organisations.

It is my considered view that trade unions are as aggressive as is necessary to deal with aggressive employers. Where employers behave in a reasonable manner trade unions do likewise.

Employers who display a negative and hostile attitude to trade unions and their members simply have the favour returned in equal measure.

The commentary’s analysis lacks an international perspective.

Lets us not forget that in an age of global capitalism trade unions in Trinidad and Tobago are no less relevant than trade unions in the international sphere.

By branding Butler as brash, and couching his arguments based on his experience or inexperience in the Industrial Court, the article robs the readers of any understanding of the hellish nature of British colonialism as it impacted on the British owned colonies during the 1930s and of the context in which an Industrial Court was established in the first place.

And so, he postulates that trade unions that cause any form of work shut down is an enemy of the people. If that is so then any strike in any part of the world must cause the same conclusion.

This author is ignorant of the fact that in democratic societies the right to withdraw labour is an inherent right of workers.

Without that right collective bargaining is reduced to collective begging.

It should be noted that workers stand to lose income when strike action is taken and workers resort to that remedy only in extreme circumstances.

Is he saying therefore that refusal to work under certain prescribed circumstances as is enshrined both in the Industrial Relations Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act makes those who are legally entitled to so do, enemies of the people? He attempts to preach diplomacy to trade unions without noting that trade unions always attempt to treat and discuss matters before applying any other measure.

His real intent is found in his conclusion as he seeks labour legislation which will allow this type of practitioner, full access to the Industrial Court without any reference to trade unions.

No attempt is made to deal with the archaic system of certification of trade unions which is the real reason why there are so many non-unionised workers in the country.

It will be useful if he would research the original use of the term “labour dinosaurs”. It came from those same elements who incorrectly predicted the end of history, but then neither history nor the labour movement has ended.

Vincent Cabrer a BIGWU President