According to an internal ministerial document leaked by the newspapers, the government may be about to water down some aspects of its anti-strike bill. By doing so, it hopes to prevent it from being derailed by the House of Lords, where it is currently in the committee stage.

Maybe Cameron will water it down. But, so far, there is no indication that he plans to remove any of the major elements of his bill. In particular, there is no question of deleting the ridiculous voting quotas it requires for strike ballots to be valid, nor the new powers it could give to the bosses allowing them to use agency workers as strike breakers.

But, anyway, no amount of tweaking will change anything to the fact that this bill is a major attack on our rights to strike and organise. And as far as we are concerned these rights are not "negotiable"!

The TUC leaders' lukewarm opposition

When Cameron's bill was announced, last year, the TUC leaders initiated a campaign to oppose it. However, beyond a flood of postings on the internet and token lobbies of the Tory conference and House of Commons, it has involved very little so far.

The climax of this campaign was meant to be a "week of action", taking place this week, under the name of "#heartunions". And we've seen committed trade-union members out in the streets, distributing leaflets to express their opposition to Cameron's dirty tricks and to win support for their case.

But this wasn't really what the TUC leaders had in mind. The climax of their "week of action" was what they called the "Big Meeting": simultaneous workplace meetings to discuss this bill to be held this Tuesday. But in how many workplaces did such meetings take place? And in those workplaces where they did take place, how many rank-and-file members were actually invited? Probably not many. It's been such a long time since branches have stopped encouraging members to play an active role in the life of their union!

Anyway, the TUC leaders certainly never intended this "Big Meeting" to enthuse members into actively opposing Cameron's bill. This was shown by the way they were meant to be organised - around an uninspiring 15-minute live video, in which TUC general secretary, Frances O'Grady was interviewed by a celebrity.

True, O'Grady stated the obvious - that this bill is an attack on all workers. But the action she proposed to prevent its adoption, was for workers to sign an e-petition (due to be delivered to Downing Street) and to... write to the Lords or Bishops (sic!) they knew! As to what the TUC plans to do in order to counter this infringement on the right to strike, if it is passed, she did not say!

A question of balance of forces

Significantly the one issue that O'Grady insisted upon in her interview was that this bill threatens the unions' finances - particularly in the public sector, where Cameron wants to end the check-off system. As if, the main problem faced by the working class today was collecting union dues! This, at a time when, due to the meteoric rise of non-jobs that the union leaders failed to oppose, its real problem is to rebuild workers' strength and self-confidence!

In fact, numerous statements by TUC leaders, from O'Grady to Unite's leader, Len McCluskey, show that they would be prepared to concede to Cameron's attacks on the right to strike if only he was willing to make some concessions in return - like leaving the check-off system intact in the public sector, giving up his attempt at interfering with the unions' funding of the Labour party and allowing internet voting in strike and other ballots.

This is why we can't expect these union leaders to organise a response to Cameron's bill. They go through the gestures of opposing it, but they are only pursuing their own agenda, which has nothing to do with the interests of the working class.

That said, whenever and wherever it was won by workers in the past, the right to strike has always been a right they had to fight for. Whether the bosses respected this right, was never just a question of going to the courts, but always a question of balance of forces as well.

If, today, the vast majority of strikes involve a strike ballot and a long delay, instead of taking place on the spot when the problem arises, it is not just because of the existing anti-strike laws. It is also because union leaders hide behind these laws to control the militancy of their members.

Once upon a time, the working class movement was built by workers who had no right to strike, but who knew that, ultimately, whether they could use the weapon of "strike" or not, was only a matter of having the strength on the ground and being prepared to use it. It is this fighting tradition that we will have to revive.