The truth behind the wildcat strikes

David Aaronovitch is on cracking form in this morning's Times with the best explanation I have seen of what lies behind the wildcat strikes. Particularly telling is the absence of evidence behind the claims being made by some union leaders - and the real reason behind these strikes.

I also called the Unite press office and asked them to supply any details they could of Mr Simpson's specific allegation that his officials had been told by the “blatant” subcontractors that they would not employ UK workers. A few minutes later a nice chap rang. He wasn't sure that Mr Simpson had been referring to Lindsey specifically, but there were other situations where this might have happened. He'd ring round and call me back. The call never came......

So what on earth was this about? Here's a clue. Also yesterday another union bigwig, Paul Kenny, of the GMB, described the “root cause” of the rash of wildcat stoppages as being “discrimination against British workers”. Mr Kenny cited in evidence personal conversations with companies who had told him that they “cannot instruct these firms [ie, subcontractors] to employ British workers” because of EU law. In other words, the lack of the ability of companies to discriminate against foreign workers was really the issue for Mr Kenny, not discrimination against British ones. What he evidently wanted was the right to employ British workers - members one presumes of British unions - in preference to EU ones.

Protectionism is a sure route to world depression

With strikes here in protest at the hiring of contractors from elsewhere in Europe and Barack Obama set to embark on a Buy American campaign, there is a real danger that the world is heading towards another bout of protectionism. Politicians must be honest on the issue. The idea that British contractors should be barred from bringing teams to other European countries would not be tolerated, so even in these difficult times, there cannot be restrictions on other EU workers here. Of course, there should be a level playing field but not preferential treatment.

The reason is obvious. A not insignificant proportion of retail earnings in December is the result of cross-border trade, with people from the Republic shopping in Newry and other Northern Irish towns. I suspect there has been a similar boost in London from French and other Eurostar shoppers. All are enjoying an advantageous exchange rate. All are keeping UK retailers going, and helping keep their staff in work. In Ireland pleas for patriotic shopping have been studiously ignored. At least within the EU, there is free trade, but we must not try to rein it in. If we try to impose protectionism, we can be sure that we will lose more than we gain.

And the same will be true in Barack Obama's America. Herbert Hoover's disastrous tariffs deepened the depression and reduced world trade to a third of its 1929 levels. If Obama is serious about re-engaging with the world, the worst thing he could do is give in to the protectionist unions bent on destroying free trade. It isn't easy when faced with the complaints of workers to give it straight. But if Gordon Brown wants to strengthen his world economic leadership credentials ahead of the G20, the best thing he could do would be to preach and practice a policy of free trade as an important part of recovering from the recession.