Boris is wrong – trade union strikes should never be illegal
Dear Boris,
As the Unite/Labour/Charlie Whelan ’axis of evil’ continues to dominate the headlines, I was rather surprised to see you getting stuck into this incredibly delicate situation. While David Cameron is certainly enjoying poking fun at Gordon Brown for being at the mercy of Unite, I thought it would be prudent for you to keep a low profile on this issue – but, then again, you are Boris.
Yesterday, you said that you need a Conservative government to push through legislation to achieve your manifesto commitment of a strike ban on the London Underground. You vowed during the mayoral election campaign two years ago that you would end “chronic strikes” by securing a deal with tube unions in which they would agree in principle not to go on strike in exchange for an independent arbitration in the case of a dispute on pay and conditions. However, talks have yet to begin, according to three of the four tube unions, although Aslef - the train drivers’ union - has a meeting with you next week. Pressed by members of the London assembly on your failure to begin talks midway through your four-year term as mayor, you indicated that you were banking on legislation, rather than negotiations, to achieve your aims. You told the assembly there was “every prospect” you would be able to “develop something” if there was a change of government. “The single biggest obstacle to a no-strike agreement … is that we do not have the right government in Westminster,” you added. ”We do not have the legislative power to institute such a proposal no matter how beneficent or far sighted in the absence of primary legislation. Since we have the wrong government in Westminster it is difficult to progress this” – all of which came as one of the unions in question was gearing up for a protest outside London Underground’s headquarters tomorrow over plans to axe up to 800 jobs.
The Conservative Party was apparently unable to comment on your suggestion that a Conservative government would claw back trade union rights, and I can see why. Although David Cameron is well within his rights to humiliate the PM on this issue, what the Conservatives do not want to get draw into is a face-to-face battle with the unions themselves. Interestingly, Cameron has not overtly criticised the unions or demanded that they stand down because he knows that this would put him right in the middle of a very sensitive political situation. However, your remarks suggest that you do not feel the need to display such tact, which bodes extremely badly. To poke fun at Gordon Brown is one thing; to call for new legislation banning trade union strikes is quite another. Personally, I would never try to outlaw trade union strikes because every worker (bar critical service personnel such as firemen) should have the right to withdraw their labour. That said, my advice would be to instigate a policy of claiming back ‘compensation’ from those who strike. Any public sector worker who goes on strike should have a reasonable sum – say, £500 – deducted from their next pay cheque and these funds should reinvested into the services that they harmed by walking out, be it Transport for London or their local school or hospital. That way, strikes remain legal, workers can still register their discontent, but the public – who are necessarily affected by public sector strike action – are ‘compensated’ for the inconvenience and disruption.
Like I said, there is simply no need for you to get involved in this tentative yet targeted union bashing. My advice to you would be to keep your head down and let Labour lose the election first, and then we can start worrying about putting the unions permanently on the back foot. Even if you still feel the need to call for new legislation, it can definitely wait. The last thing we need is for Unite to start making phonecalls and getting even more disgruntled union workers to join their publicity parade.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
In Germany, it is illegal for anyone employed by the State to strike. We should do likewise. If you work for the Government, including local Government, striking should be illegal.
It’s already ruled out for the police, isn’t it?
The police are prohibited from Unionising – the Police Federation skirts as close to being a union as it legally can and ACPO is a private, profit making company. The military is also banned from unionising.
Go for it Boris! What we really do need is for Cameron to stand up to the Unions.
Boudicca, I disagree. For critical services, yes, people need to know that when they sign up that they don’t have a choice about whether they turn up for work, but for other services I see no reason to make striking illegal. I just think a healthy dose of reailty through asking them to compensate the public for their decision not to turn up for work provides a nice balance to the situation.
Alastair, if Cameron provokes the unions too much then the Labour core vote will pour out onto the streets and into the poll booths in their thousands, and that would be a disaster for him.
Trade unions would benefit from being more democratic institutions but that’s for their members to sort out. Banning them has never been Conservative policy or practice. The pretence that it is, or has been, is part of the socialist union infiltration and driving out of Conservative trade unionist ‘narrative’. Both my grandfather and my father were trade unionists and Conservatives; and supporters of the co-operative movement. There’s nothing by nature socialist about unions; they were infiltrated and taken over by socialists and communists many of whom were paid for by international communist funding to do this full time. Working class Conservatives could do with a great deal more encouragement and assistance in making their voices heard in working people’s institutions.
It was socialist Labour that de-mutualised our self-help organisations like building societies; it was socialist Labour that shoved the provision of welfare from an insurance-based safety net to a redistributive ideologically-driven ‘rights’ provision. But I won’t go on.
Well, if the surveys of how few Unite members actually want to go on strike is to be believed, maybe the Conservatives aren’t as cut out of the union movement as they might think?
So basically you want the market rigged even more in the favour of Capital. If there was a move to impose more regulation on industry you would be squealing your little head off. Why can you only envisage liberty for reactionaries?
KK, not sure I get your point. I’m not talking about industry regulation here, I’m talking about public sector workers – the two are totally separate issues. I don’t want the market ‘rigged’, I simply want it to reflect the nature and purpose of public services – which is, let us not forget, to serve the public.
“Trade union strikes should never be illegal.”
I would agreed with this in days of old in the same way I agree that some armed rebellions are legitimate (you could make a case if Labour win the next election insurrection in Britain would be legitimate to obviate the repression and suffering of the majority by a minority).
However, today with our more sophisticated institutions and acceptance of equality, fairness and justice a more equitable means of resolving industrial disputes could be devised without the disruptive and harmful effects of strikes. In ACAS there is the acorn of an institution that could be better molded to fulfill that ambition. To achieve this unfortunately would need legislation to make strikes illegal but provide for a process that make them unnecessary.
We live in a democracy where people have a vote, not unions. I think the days of the unions having a block labour vote is long gone! But I think you are missing the point. Cameron is aiming his fire at Brown’s impotence and double dealing. Boris is having a go at the power of the unions to disrupt the daily life of Londoners. These are surely both vote winners.
Lfat, I think you have made more of Boris’ comments than was intended.
At present, if a union enters into a ‘no-strike’ agreement, it only need ballot its members in the usual way to break that agreement. There is no legislative framework under which businesses and unions can enter into these situations and either side be able to hold the other to the agreements made. The company gives the union what it wants for the agrement to put in place, but when the union decides it wants more it can tear the agreement up with impunity.
What I inferred from this is that he feels that a Conservative government might enact legislation to set in place a framework of penalties for companies and unions which would help to encourage no strike agreements to be kept. This might include a higher vote threshold for a union to break from an agreement than the normal plain majority, say a 66% vote.
Antisthenes, times have certainly changed for most people who live outside the world of the unions. Maybe we should pay unions taxpayers’ money to ‘modernise’? Oh… wait….
Alastair, they might be vote winners in the short-term but I don’t think it is wise to get the backs up of union leaders right now, given their supposed £25 million war chest that is waiting to be unleashed against a Conservative government.
Tony E, hard to say without the full details, but I see where you’re coming from.
I think that it is totally wrong to ban striking outright, as Boris seems to be suggesting. But surely a more effective method – and one that needs to be done – should be to remove some of the pro-union legislation that allows for them to strike safely. Allow companies to bring in temporary staff, and even to fire and replace those who strike. That would level the playing field somewhat don’t you think?
Taking up the point that curbing unions by making them pay for the damage they do is very valid.
LFAT, Any public sector worker who goes on strike should have a reasonable sum – say, £500 – deducted from their next pay cheque and these funds should reinvested into the services that they harmed by walking out, be it Transport for London or their local school or hospital. Has it’s merits but would be seen as an injustice.
Kyle, Allow companies to bring in temporary staff, and even to fire and replace those who strike. As I understand it that is available now but rarely used where it has been it has mixed results.
Tinkering with union rules would just be skating over the problem and methods to overcome restrictions would be devised.
I suggest that it be enshrined in law that any innocent party should be allowed to sue the opposing parties engaged in a strike for damages for financial loss and personal inconvenience, both parties to pay the damages 50/50. That hardly can be seen as unfair and would ensure that most disputes were settled by negotiation.
Agree with Alistair.
Potentially 12 million people are effected by a tube strike. They aren’t one offs either. A couple a year or threats of them anyway. the tube is one of the last unions that can shut down its employers operation completely and so has great power.
Boris appeals to the 11,975,000 who aren’t members of the tube union and links the Unite media storm to Bob Crowe in commuter’s minds.
Unite are going to use their funds for the labour party whatever happens. They already have a sophisticated union member voting operation running.
Union legislation, that Tony Blair promised the unions he would repeal, and never touched because it made the country governable again,
was the greatest of Mrs T’s reforms.
@Antisthenes – As far as I was aware they can only fire striking workers after they have been on strike for 12 weeks, and they must fire all striking workers or none at all.
As for temporary staff, there is a lot of confusion. See The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 Section 7. Which seems to suggest that you cannot bring in temporary staff.
the rmt have announced that maintenance workers and signalling staff have voted to take strike action and as a network rail employee i find this disgusting. this millitant organisation can bully employers, and back them into a corner just like the unite union is doing with ba. the days of striking should be long gone and banned. i believe unions do a good job negotiating memebers terms, pay rises etc but striking is uncalled for. i recieved a ballot paper off the rmt but whatever i voted for makes no odds cos the majority voted to take strike action, so if i strike my family get punished because i will lose pay and bonus payments etc and if i dont strike ill be singled out, victimised and bullied by millitant union members who take it upon themselves to tell people how to behave. its a lose lose situation as far as i can see.