Critical moment for Gate Gourmet workers
The struggle of the sacked Gate Gourmet catering workers at Heathrow has exposed the gulf that exists between those who have no choice but to fight for their livelihoods and a well-fed trade union leadership that uses militant language but in practice holds back from decisive action.
If anyone wants to know why trade union membership and finances are in decline, they need to look no further than the conduct of Tony Woodley and the rest of the Transport & General Workers Union leaders.
They have gone out of their way to appease the ruthless global catering firm that in August sacked more than 670 workers at a moment's notice. The provocation that led to the sackings was a clear attempt by the US-based corporation to break the union at Gate Gourmet and reduce wages and conditions.
Sacked workers demonstrate outside Terminal 4
Gate Gourmet was British Airway's in-house catering arm until the company decided to sell it off in 1997. Since then it has sought a £50 million reduction in catering costs over the duration of the contract. As a result, the sacked workers, Asian women in the main, were earning an average of just over £200 a week.
But when BA baggage handlers walked out in sympathy with the sacked workers, and brought the airline to a halt, they were ordered back to work - by the TGWU leaders. Why? Because solidarity action is illegal in Britain under the anti-union laws introduced by the Tories and retained with enthusiasm by New Labour.
Instead of seizing the opportunity to defy unjust laws which run contrary to basic human rights and broaden the campaign, the TGWU leaders disowned the action of the baggage staff. Woodley later described it as a "wildcat action" - the same terminology used by the media.
From that moment, Gate Gourmet management knew that the TGWU leadership was running scared. When the company used strike-breakers to resume the supply of meals to BA, the TGWU declined to ask its members to block their handling at the airport.
The retreat has continued. When the Trades Union Congress in the shape of general secretary Brendan Barber became involved, it was not to offer the support of other unions. Instead, it was to negotiate away jobs in a so-called "framework agreement" made with the company.
This tawdry agreement accepts the company's proposal to make 675 jobs redundant out of its total workforce of 1,400. A spokeswoman for the TGWU said the union recognised the "competitive pressures" the caterer was under and welcomed the move to make the package voluntary. "The decision to opt for redundancy will be a personal one, but many workers have known this was likely for many months and have had time to think over their options," she said.
So, from initially fighting for the reinstatement of the sacked workers, the TGWU leaders have signed up to a redundancy deal administered by Gate Gourmet itself. No wonder some of the sacked workers described it as a "frame-up" rather than a "framework" agreement.
Now Gate Gourmet is pushing at an open door. Gate Gourmet's chairman Dave Siegel said from Texas that under no circumstances would the firm take back 200 sacked workers who he described as "troublemakers". That threatens to unravel the deal brokered by the TUC.
Gate Gourmet workers are struggling with one hand tied behind their backs. Woodley and other union leaders are desperate to avoid a conflict with New Labour, which endorses a global economy based on contracting out, driving down wages and anti-unionism. In the run-up to the recent general election, the TGWU stood back while MG Rover was allowed to collapse, throwing thousands on the dole.
A World to Win urges Gate Gourmet workers to reject the "framework agreement" and accept nothing less than complete reinstatement. They should appeal for indefinite strike support from every trade unionist at Heathrow, starting with British Airways workers. At the same time, a campaign for democratic ownership and control of global corporations like British Airways and Gate Gourmet would receive widespread backing.
If the TGWU leaders refuse to lead this kind of campaign, they should step aside and make way for those who will.
2 September 2005
Comment on this
* required field