They are the source of all evil in the global market place. For years they have refused to accept the economic ?reality.? They have only their own narrow interests, and that of their members, in mind. In fact, they have never grasped a simple truth spelt out by Mrs Thatcher a quarter of a century before: the TINA (There is no alternative) doctrine.

Furthermore, they remain stubborn in retaining ?outdated? concepts like workers? rights, labour laws, job security, pensions, health and safety in the workplace, etc. These children of Satan are of course trade union leaders whose despicable organisations desperately try to sabotage economic life and make life unbearable for the citizens of a country. This is the general way that unions are presented by the corporate world, the government (to varying degrees) and the media.

Two weeks ago, Ireland?s largest trade union, Siptu (Services Internet Private Trade Union), decided to stage a strike at Dublin Airport over fears concerning the upcoming privatisation of the national airline, Aer Lingus. For a period of two hours, Siptu members working in different departments of the airport attended a meeting with union representatives to discuss fears over pensions and job security. The headlines the next day were of passengers stranded for hours, during the climax of the holiday season (some have to go to their holiday homes in the south of Spain, after all). However, when radio stations interviewed passengers, the response was overwhelmingly in support of striking workers. People unanimously saw it as a legitimate way of making one?s job secure.

But this probably came as a shock to the radio reporters who were prepared to hear an outburst of anger and recrimination in the microphones - such is the way that unions are generally portrayed in the media and popular fiction. As Noam Chomsky says, the traditional view of trade unions, in popular culture, usually resembles that in On the Waterfront, with Marlon Brando playing the ordinary ?working class Joe? who stands up to the unions and the overpaid bosses. This is, in fact, the historical portrayal of trade unions.

In his book, Through jaundiced eyes: how the media view organised labour, William J. Puette points to a study conducted with high school students in Hawaii in 1989. The findings are quite revealing: ?When asked to describe their basic impressions of labour unions, students responding to this survey raised ten themes: unions are always going on strike, unions are too powerful, unions are corrupt, unions are greedy and selfish, unions are ruining the country, union leaders (bosses) are overpaid, union dues are too high, unions are undemocratic and un-American, unions protect bad workers, unions are no longer needed.?

<B> ?Pampered dinosaurs? </B>

Such sentiments towards trade unions are not the least surprising, even in teenagers. They make regular appearances in the columns of the right-wing press. In Ireland, they have been described as a ?comfortable cabal?, ?precious brothers who have never created a single job or a single cent in Ireland?. Instead, these ?pampered dinosaurs? have ?spent decades resisting change?. Another editorial concluded outright that ?trade unions stand in the way of the common good?. Across the Atlantic, the situation is the same. On last year?s strike by public transport workers in New York, the Christian Science Monitor, not exactly a paper of the right, wrote that ?only the political will of elected leaders can resist the well-moneyed clout of unions and serve society as a whole?. Thus, when people voice legitimate fears over employment, they must be resisted. On the other hand, when those in the top one percent of society state a need for increasing their margin of profits, then ?elected leaders? must find creative ways to comfort them.

These creative ways, that ?elected leaders? must find, and that the ?pampered dinosaurs? usually resist include a decrease in wages, the relaxing of labour laws (or to use the popular euphemism ?market flexibility?), making it easier for employers to fire people, etc.

Exactly what is happening in Mauritius. Thus, pressure must be applied on the trade unions to accept measures that further increase economic insecurity for workers. The public sector becomes an obvious target, as it is the most unionised area of the economy.

Since their unions can, to some degree, resist reactionary pressures, they must be vilified and their influence reduced by privatisation or anti-labour laws. In the words of a former finance minister of Ireland (who would make Sithanen look like a raving communist), the public sector is the burden that would ?break the back of the wealth creators.? However, this fails to acknowledge the massive contribution from the state to the private sector, in terms of a healthy and educated workforce, all achieved at the expense of tax payers.

But there is a greater need for trade unions. They have been one of the few real democratic forces in society and they have carefully and painfully won many basic rights for workers. However, the election of Thatcher in 1979 was to see a new wave attack on trade unions. They were deliberately targeted and laws passed against organised labour, which New Labour has failed to reverse. This visceral hatred of trade unions has been replicated almost everywhere where capital has wanted to make bigger inroads into the economy. It is a simple equation for business to increase their share of profits by driving wages down and creating a situation where job security does not exist.

However, the unions have not themselves come to terms with these pressures. They are still too provincial in their outlook, failing to see that many of their problems have international roots. This is only the beginning of a renewed phase of attacks on rights, which were won after years of campaigning. The next few years and decades will see ever greater pressures on trade unions and they will have to become proactive if they do not want to see their roles further minimised.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN</B> Outlook Correspondent in Dublin