I HAPPENED to be caught up in the Heathrow stoppage on Thursday. I was returning with my wife from a holiday in Portugal; we were flying British Airways. Our aircraft landed at about 16.30; we were not allowed to disembark until 19.30, because British Airways staff refused to operate the stand. During that period we were effectively imprisoned in the aircraft; the doors were “armed”; passengers were told to stay in their seats; even to go to the lavatory, one had to be accompanied by a member of the cabin crew. Some thousands of people were in the same situation at Heathrow; some of them had already experienced long flights, many had other flights to catch, some were missing important engagements. The Government’s view was that this mass imprisonment was a “commercial dispute”.

I do not know whether we have any legal redress or, if so, against whom. If any member of Cherie Booth’s chambers has a moment to give me a pro bono opinion on the violation of our human rights, I should be delighted. I assume that wrongful imprisonment is a criminal offence, whether committed by an airline or a trade union.

However, I was interested by the event. Every journalist has a reporter lurking somewhere inside him, and is delighted to be presented with a story that comes unsought. I was not particularly angry on my own account, but I did resent the extreme inconvenience to thousands of passengers, many of whom were in a far worse position than we were.

There is no doubt that the strike was illegal. There was no ballot and no warning; the walkout of British Airways staff was secondary action in support of the Gate Gourmet strike, which was equally unlawful. The Transport and General Workers Union cannot disclaim responsibility. Before the strike, Tony Woodley, the general secretary, gave warning that “we will have a major dispute, which is going to escalate”. He had foreseen what was about to happen, but did nothing to prevent it. It took 14 hours after the strike had started for the union to order the strikers back to work. The illegal action was therefore condoned, and perhaps more than condoned, by the union concerned. Reduced to its simplest terms, Tony Woodley was responsible for locking us up for three hours. Do we have an action against him?

This is the third year running that there have been similar illegal strikes against British Airways at the height of the holiday season. These strikes have done cumulative damage to the reputation of BA. The management deserves its share of blame. Difficult as its situation is, it seems on each occasion to have been taken by surprise. It lacks robust back-up systems.

These strikes show a pattern of militancy. Strikers should recognise that their jobs are at stake. Arthur Scargill destroyed the coal industry by his militancy; Heathrow is not invulnerable, and British Airways, like all other national carriers, lives on a knife edge of competition.

However, there is a difference between the militancy of the 1970s and modern militancy. In the past trade union militants wrecked British manufacturing industry in an attempt to preserve old craft privileges. The immediate impact of their strikes fell on the employer. It did not matter greatly to the customer if he had to buy a foreign car; it destroyed British Leyland. Now Britain is largely a service economy. Strikes in service industries are strikes against the customer.

That happened at the margin in 1979, when funeral workers made it impossible for people to bury their dead. In a service economy the main targets of trade union militancy will inevitably be the customers themselves, in the airlines, in other public transport, perhaps in the National Health Service. Yet this involves direct confrontations between the unions and the public. The Heathrow strike was the T&G versus the British people.

Historically, the trade union movement fathered the Labour Party, yet the trade union can be Labour’s great political handicap. The behaviour of militant trade unions in the 1970s put the Labour Party out of office for 18 years after 1979. New Labour under Tony Blair has won the confidence of the public, including much of the middle class. Yet there have always been sections of trade unionism who feel that Labour ought still to be their party, a political expression of the narrow self-interest of their members. That would be fatal to the new Labour concept.

If this were not a trade union issue, Tony Blair’s Government would find it necessary to legislate. The issue is big enough. There are about 100,000 customers of British Airways who have suffered inconvenience, or actual detention against their will.

A few have suffered more serious financial loss. They should have a redress at law against the people responsible, whether at British Airways, Gate Gourmet or the T&G.

On both sides intermediate bodies have been used deliberately to screen the responsibility of the principals. “Outsourcing” is used by global companies, such as British Airways, to reduce costs and transfer responsibility. That is at the expense of both their passengers and of their workforce; when outsourcing breaks down, it means that the company cannot manage its own business. British Airways cannot put the blame on Gate Gourmet. It decided to hand its catering business over to the incompetent managers who have so embarrassed it.

Legislation is needed to protect the public, who are bound to be involved in future disputes. The principle is simple. Both management and trade unions must be made clearly responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Trade unions have the right to withdraw labour under legal terms, with notice, after a ballot. They do not have the right to damage or imprison large numbers of ordinary travellers.

Tony Woodley should consider his own position. He has attacked the customers of his members and endangered his members’ jobs.

JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails via www.timesonline.co.uk/debate

Times Recommends

• Snow brings out the inner Tory in all of us
• Hail, Britain’s Indiana Jones of the Amazon
• Hewitt and Hoon – two rabbits, one hat