The TUC claims the government is threatening a fundamental British liberty
The government has today announced new legislation introducing new strike thresholds for ‘important public services’. It means that strikes in certain sectors – fire, health, education, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning – will require the support of 40 per cent of union members entitled to vote and a 50 per cent turnout in order to legally go ahead.
Employment minister Nick Boles said the new law was a way of reassuring the public that any strike which causes disruption in their daily lives is justified by the backing of a reasonable proportion of union members. But unions are not convinced the case has been made.
Responding to the announcement, the TUC’s general secretary Frances O’Grady said:
“The government is set on introducing tougher measures to make it harder for teachers, doctors and other public servants to defend their jobs and the services we all rely on. Now, with government cuts making services worse for patients, pupils and passengers, staff will find it far harder to raise their concerns. And we will all feel the impact in the long-term.
“The decision to go on strike is never one people take lightly. It’s a last resort, when employers won’t listen and won’t compromise. The government is wrong to threaten this fundamental British liberty.”
She added:
“Ministers have done their utmost to try and brainwash the public into thinking that strikes are out of control. However, days lost to strike action are just a tiny fraction of what they were in the 1980s. And they accounted for a miniscule 0.0035 per cent of all working days between October 2014 and October 2015.
“These new thresholds will have the perverse effect of making abstentions more powerful in strike ballots than ‘no’ votes – and yet increasing participation in union democracy is something the government claims to want.”
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
133 Responses to “Unions’ dismay as new strike law announced”
Jacko
What’s special about union members that makes it exceptionally difficult for them to cast a vote? What’s the problem? I’ve been a union member. I just ticked the form and put it in the box. So what?
bristoleastman
Think some more about this please. If the requirement is 40% of those *entitled to vote* (not of those who actually do vote) then that’s a requirement that stands independently of turnout (for which there is a *separate* condition, namely 50%).
Dave Stewart
Put it in the box?
May I ask when that was?
All industrial action ballots now need to be conducted by post usually with the correspondence going to a of mixture of personal and work addresses (depending on what the member indicated as their preference upon joining, in practice people seldom remember what they chose).
I did not say that it is particularly difficult for members to cast their vote, my point was that if this was actually about improving turn out the government would be considering proposals that have been shown to improve turnout. What they are doing instead is effectively making abstentions (i.e not voting) count as no votes.
Jacko
But it’s not about improving turnout. Who has claimed that it was? No-one cares about people who can’t be bothered to vote. I couldn’t care less. That’s their business. All people care about is that a small group of militant socialist-worker extremists are not able to impose their minority viewpoint and close London Underground for 48 hours whenever they feel like it. If that means requiring more people to turn out and vote then so be it. How you get those people to vote is a matter for the union, not the government, or society.
Incidentally, seeing as you ask, let me illustrate my union experience with a true story.
I was about eighteen years old, it was my first job. I had been working there about three weeks. One day I was called in for a lunchtime meeting with three union reps. Three men, fifties, sitting behind a tressle table.
“We’ve had reports,” said the man in the middle, “of you picking up waste paper off the factory floor and putting it in a bin.”
“Is this true?” demanded of his colleagues. “Did you pick up waste paper and put it in a bin?”
“Er, well, um…” I had to stop and think. What on earth could I have done wrong? For a moment I couldn’t even remember any incidents of picking up paper. But then I did remember. Yes, I had to admit it, I had picked up waste paper off the factory floor and put it in a rubbish bin.
“You must NEVER do that again,” shouted the union rep. “We have people employed to clean up, and if you start cleaning up as well as doing your job, you would be doing the work of TWO MEN!”
“Two men!” said his friend, angrily. “For one man’s wages!”
“If we ever hear of you picking up paper off the factory floor again, you will be in VERY SERIOUS TROUBLE.”
More than anything, that explains my contempt for trade unions.
Tynam
Since you want to point out the ways in which strike ballots aren’t general election votes, let me point out one you carelessly missed:
A ‘yes’ vote can cost you lost wages, work, time, and bad blood with your employer.
In today’s desperate economy, a lot of union members are easily intimidated out of striking. With millions living hand-to-mouth or dependant on food banks, some people can’t afford to strike.
*That’s* why 40% (NOT 20%; you have not understood the rules) is unrealistic.