If you are simultaneously bashing the unions and slashing welfare, you're also not in the best position to accuse others of conducting class war.
If you are simultaneously bashing the unions and slashing welfare, you’re not in the best position to accuse others of conducting class war
On the Andrew Marr show this morning David Cameron confirmed that under a majority Conservative government a turnout threshold would be introduced for strike action. The PM said:
“I think in these essential services, like the London Underground, the pain caused to people trying to get to work and trying to help their families by these strikes, which are often supported by a relatively small percentage…I think it’s hugely damaging and so I think the time has come for setting thresholds in strike ballots in essential services. It’s not something I can achieve in a coalition government. It’s something that will be in our manifesto.”
The idea of 50 per cent turnout threshold is something which has previously been championed by London Mayor Boris Johnson. It also fits with the theme of recent Tory attacks on Ed Miliband for being “in the pocket” of the trade unions.
Indeed, for someone who was once believed by many to be a ‘no-content’ Conservative (for a long time it was said that Cameron didn’t believe in anything), proposals to introduce thresholds for industrial action are profoundly ideological. It’s also ironic that, during a week when the Tories have accused Labour of “class war”, they are indulging in pointless union-bashing in order to cheer up their grassroots supporters.
And that’s really what this proposal is about: appeasing right-wing Tories who may be attracted to UKIP.
It’s certainly hard to see any practical reason why Britain urgently needs new strike turnout threshold rules. Far fewer days are lost to industrial action in Britain today than in the past. The number of working days lost to industrial action hit an all-time-low in 2012, with just 250,300 days lost. This compares to an average of 12.9m working days a year lost in the 1970s.
The odds are also already stacked against trade unions, with many ballots invalidated by bureaucratic legal rulings even after a successful ballot. Since 1980 there has been the following blitz of legislation to curb strikes:
- the 1980 Employment Act;
- the 1982 Employment Act;
- the 1984 Trade Union Act;
- the 1988 Employment Act;
- the 1989 Employment Act;
- the 1990 Employment Act;
- the 1993 Employment Act.
As much as the recent tube strikes were an inconvenience to London’s commuters, the biggest issues facing ordinary people in Britain today are stagnant pay and inequality between the ‘squeezed middle’ and the so-called ‘1 per cent’. Wages are still lagging behind inflation for those who don’t receive bonuses, and notwithstanding a very slight narrowing of the gap between the rich and the poor during the downturn, the share of total UK income going to the richest 1 per cent increased from 6 per cent in 1979 to 14 per cent today.
These developments are arguably attributable to the declining power of the trade unions, and for obvious reasons: as union membership has fallen, bosses have had a much stronger hand when it has come to squeezing the pay of their employees and awarding themselves eye-watering sums in remuneration. No, not all employers are like that; but nor are all trade unionists communist troublemakers intent on walking out at the first opportunity. In fact, I’ve never met a trade unionist who actually enjoys going on strike and losing a day or more in pay.
Even Ukippers should welcome more active trade unions if they really care about British workers being undercut by migrants from Eastern Europe. The best way to ensure that migrant workers are paid properly is, after all, to get them unionised so that, alongside their British counterparts, they can push their employer for better pay and working conditions.
Making it more difficult to strike will do nothing to tackle the real issues facing British families, and as with so many policies emanating from Downing Street these days, this is yet another sop to a faction of the Tory party that is increasingly charmed by Ukip. If you are simultaneously bashing the unions and slashing welfare, you’re also not in the best position to accuse others of conducting class war.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
54 Responses to “The Tories want to ban strikes without 50% turnout, yet they accuse others of class war”
LB
I’ve never said block the borders. I want migrants, but I want migrants that contribute more than they take out.
With the average government spend of 11.5K per person per year, that needs the migrant to earn over 40K a year just to break even.
The consequences of that not being the case are high rents, less welfare after Ed agreed the cap, and people out of work.
LB
In what way did the unions at British Leyland, the RMT in London, and the political strike at Grangemouth involve union cooperation?
LB
Interesting charts. The problem is that you need to turn it into hard cash terms, not the number of claims.
What it perhaps shows, is that the state isn’t building, but there are more people who are poor. Unemployment down, hmmm. Perhaps its lots of poor migrants. They can’t get onto the waiting lists, so the have to go to the PRS. Hence the increase One strong reason not to pay welfare to migrants. It diverts money and they don’t pay their way over all. Rich migrants? The more the merrier.
==========
I am not going to argue their merits or demerits because I fundamentally believe that the people in a country require a government or ‘state’ to facilitate these and similar services
==========
For lots on your list, its not the case. You’ve conflated the state must supply, with the alternative, which is the state must help out those that cannot afford. Take a health system. You can have private systems that are affordable, with universal coverage (the US fails on both). What the state does for the poor is give them the money in benefits to buy the insurance. Same result. What is also clear is how much the welfare claimant is receiving. Something the left wants to obscure. The reason is that the public would be very angry if they knew the true extent of what is going on.
============
I also feel that there is a need for affordable housing as poorer people must be able to access basic accommodation which is in a habitable state and is within their means.
============
Or they get a top up. Another choice. However, the problem in the UK is that supply and demand applies. Labour engineered massive migration, and didn’t build. Demand up, constant supply, and you get price rises. With its move towards more fascist economics like rent control [fascist economics means the state dictates to business], you will get a huge drop in the quality, or people on the streets. It won’t work, see NY for rent control.
How about kicking out the Bob Crow’s from the social housing? How about making social housing about need and for short terms? ie. To help those in need, not those that want a subsidy and can afford other places? How about reducing demand? How about capping HB payments? Under labour they were paying 104,000 a year in HB to individual families. Tax free. That’s why its a mess. Caps are needed on HB, as well as the above.
PoundInYourPocket
Grangemouth were bought out by a hostile asset stripper who positively sought union confrontation. British Leyland were from an era where union/manager relations were notoriously negative, on both sides. Managers referred to line workers as “track-rats”. The RMT union has a record of being concerned about passanger safety and has had the patience of a saint in negotiating with london Underground despite the constant hostility of the media and Boris. My point really was to contrast the success of German industry with that of the UK and compare that with union engagement in both countries.
PoundInYourPocket
Thanks for that Wiki reference. I agree with your figures which are ONS sourced, but what are you inferring from the data ?
Yes there are 7.35 milliion “non-UK” born residents in the UK, including those of non-working age. It also includes 4.9 milion non-EU residents that are not part of the EU debate, and of the remainder, as I said above, only 940k are from the EU8 / Romania and Bulgaria and in work. The other EU residents in work are from more developed EU countries so are not necessarily competing for low income jobs. There are also 406k Irish residents who would be here anyway as before the EU we still had an open border with Ireland. So I think the EU immigration does boil down to that 940k number rather than your more sensational 7.35 million. The ONS data does though show why for me this appears as a non issue, as in my region the number of EU migrants is less than 1% of the population. It also shows that the number EU migrants is heavily concentrated in London, so is this really such an issue outside London such that a political party can make so much capital out of it ?