Dutch trade unionists boycott coal bound for Britain The following article is from the February 13 issue of Klassenstrijd, the paper of the Dutch section of the Fourth International.
At last, the first action has gotten off the ground at the Overslag Bedrijf Amsterdam [Amsterdam Transshipment Company]. On Friday, February 8, for the entire day no coal was loaded into ship "Elisabeth" bound for England. But why in hell has it taken so long to get such actions under way? And how is it possible that coal and oil are still going to England from the Netherlands?
The leadership of the FNV [the major union confederation] and the affiliated unions have always had something new to hide behind. Up to the beginning of December, the Vervoersbond [Transport Workers Union] said that there was no "official call for a boycott"
What are the facts?
On March 21, 1984, the NUM launched an international appeal. It asked the miners unions to watch to make sure that none of the coal they produced was shipped to Great Britain. The two international transport workers federations got a request to ask their members to boycott coal and oil shipments to England.
Two and a half months later, the NUM sent a letter to the FNV. It was dated May 1. Among other things, it said: *We would be very happy to have your help to try to stop the transshipment of coal from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom ....' [Retranslated from the Dutch.]
Two days later, Vernon Jones, overseas representative of the NUM, during a meeting with Kees Marges of the Vervoersbond pressed him to take action.
Marges gave the following response in an interview with the critical trade-unionist paper Solidariteit (January 1985): "Contacts abroad are not going so easily because the NUM is no longer a member of the International Miners Federation."
On May 22, the International Miners Federation called on the transport unions to black coal transport to Great Britain. So, what is the problem if the NUM is not a member of the International Federation?
Marges offered another argument: "We didn't hear anything more from the NUM." On October 12, Peter Heathfield, secretary of the NUM wrote directly to Wim Kok, [head of the FNV]. In his letter, he expressed his concern that nothing had yet been done about the shipment of coal and oil out of Dutch harbors. Marges said (in the same interview with Solidariteit), 10
"The letter was a joke — a wild west story" Marges resumed the lebel was a jone contact with the national leadership of the NUM, "but they could not clear it up for me....
So, how did it happen that Heathfield himself in a letter of December 6 confirmed his letter to Kok?
Not before December 8 does any headway seem to have been made. Kees Marges, in the name of the Vervoersbond; and Rob Bunt, for the FNV, engaged in discussions in London. Under the leadership of Norman Willis, general secretary of the TUC, representatives of the confederations and transport unions from West Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands talked with a representative of the International Transport Federation and representatives of a series of British trade unions. Out of this meeting came a call to do everything possible to prevent the shipment of extra quantities of coal and oil, over and above the usual shipments.
From these facts it seems clear that more was asked than simply "seeking out and registering coal and oil shipments to England," as the leadership of the Vervoersbond has always claimed.
Naturally, such a boycott will not come about spontaneously. It is not so easy with the transshipment companies. The fear of unemployment is great on the docks. Reorganizations in the past have eliminated a lot of jobs. And the Vervoersbond could not do anything about that.
So it is logical that people on the docks say, "and now we are supposed to boycott coal? Naturally, we don't like doing that work" "But how long should we strike? A day? The next day the ship will be loaded " "We think that there will only be a strike if our own needs are taken up."
There are problems that you cannot avoid if you want to call a boycott. But it was very cheap when Wim Kok said at the time of the occupation of the FNV office: "People have to be able to determine themselves what policy the leadership is to follow." A call for a boycott could only be effective if it were coupled with a perspective for the future of the transshipment business. Take Terneuzen. Its business in practice turns around the shipment of coal. What sort of future does it have if the miners lose?
The fact that it is nonsense that the workers do not want a boycott is clear from the fantastic action of the workers at the Overslag Bedrijf Amsterdam. But that must not be the end of it. All shipment of coal to England must be stopped.
Another problem often raised is that in the event of a boycott, the Vervoersbond would have the judges on its back. That would not happen if the boycott were called officially by the International Transport Federation. The conditions for that exist. The ITF supports the call for boycotting extra coal shipments. According to a letter from the federation leadership of the FNV to the secretaries and district leaders (dated December 13, 1984), the ITF is calling on all affiliated organisations to do everything possible to achieve that aim.
International Viewpoint 11 March 1985
No one is unaware that there are a lot of problems involved in boycotting extra coal and oil shipments. But a solution can be found for those problems once the union leadership is prepared to take the responsibility for such a boycott and thus to mobilize the creativity of the membership.
The newspaper of the FNV, de Vakbondskrant, writes:
"Action readiness has been harmed especially by the activities of various action committees operating outside the union movement, some of whose members have put such heavy pressure on workers at the transshipment companies that a lot