It is hard to see any economic or moral rationale for the legislation
In the asymmetrical power relations between capital and labour, workers sometime have to resort to collective withdrawal of their labour to bring employers to the negotiating table. The Trade Union Bill, that yesterday passed its second reading with 33 votes, threatens this right.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) recognises that the right to withdraw labour and go on strike is a fundamental right. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests’.
The recent court case of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v The United Kingdom stated that the right of strike is part of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The legislation is being hurried when workers’ share of the gross national product (GDP) is at its lowest. In 1976, a time when, with 13 million members, trade unions represented about 56 per cent of the work force, workers’ share of GDP was 65.1 per cent.
The 1980 and 1990s Thatcherite attacks weakened trade unions. Now with trade union membership reduced to about 6.5 million, that share has dropped to 50.4 per cent, the lowest ever recorded.
The lack of purchasing power in the hands of ordinary people is the biggest cause of austerity. The biggest beneficiaries from this have been corporations with average profits of 12 per cent, and a pay bonanza for their executives. Many working people have been forced to use food banks and owning a home has become a distant dream. Yet the government is committed to further weakening of the collective rights of workers.
The Trade Union Bill continues the Thatcherite tradition of weakening workers’ right to withdraw labour whilst doing nothing to constrain the employers’ right to withdraw capital and relocate production. The Bill requires a 50 per cent turnout for industrial action ballots, and a support from at least 40 per cent of all those eligible to do so where the industrial action involves ‘important public services’.
The government defends such requirements by saying that they bring democratic legitimacy. By this argument the Conservative government itself has no legitimacy. In the 2015 general election, the Conservative Party received 37 per cent of votes in a 66 per cent turnout. This amounts to a mandate from only 22 per cent of the total electorate.
The Bill does not permit unions to conduct electronic ballots. Employers can break strikes by using agency staff. The period of notice of a strike to be given to an employer will be increased from 7 to 14 day. The Bill bans automatic opt-ins to political donations from trade union subscription fees. There will be restrictions on the use of social media for trade unions taking industrial action. Article 9 of the Bill will require trade unions to pride the names of picketers to the police.
The government claims that higher thresholds and other restrictions are needed because the general public is affected by industrial action. Actually, the general public is affected by corporate practices too.
Companies can decimate the lives of workers, their families and local communities by unilateral closure or relocation of productive facilities. If the government was being even-handed then it would have required that relocation or withdrawal of capital be preceded by a ballot of shareholders, employees and other stakeholders. Of course, such industrial democracy is not on the government’s agenda.
The Labour party has traditionally relied on trade unions and their members for financial support and the Bill now seeks to strangle that source of finance. In contrast, there are no restrictions on corporate funding of political parties though this is subject to a shareholder resolution at annual general meetings. However, individual shareholders cannot opt out of such donations even if they disagree with the policies of the recipient party.
An alternative explanation for the Bill is provided by Sir Vince Cable, business secretary in the 2010-2015 government. He states that the government has launched a ‘vindictive, counterproductive and ideologically driven’ attack on trade unions. A senior Conservative legislator has referred to the Bill as a draconian dictatorship. It is hard to see any economic or moral rationale for the legislation. It seems to be designed to appease corporations who have heavily financed the Conservative Party.
Prem Sikka is Professor of accounting at the University of Essex
Want to read more posts like this? Then *sign-up to Look Left* and make sure you have the facts to rebut right-wing spin
20 Responses to “Trade unions are being held to tougher standards than businesses or government”
stevep
The Tories represent the landed, the wealthy, business, corporations, the city etc.
Their aim is to provide ideal conditions to maximise profit for whatever ventures the above mentioned engage in.
The un-Landed and Un-wealthy need to work for them to secure a living. The only way they can hope to have a fairly stable life at work or even improve their living standards is to be part of a collective, such as a Trade Union, who will bargain on behalf of them and expect solidarity and commitment in return.
The Tories do not remotely represent workers, so they see any form of collectivity as a threat to wealthy interests, and seek and have always sought, to undermine it.
That is why the current anti-Union legislation is on the table, it is to finish off collectivity for good and reduce the vast majority of the working citizens of the UK to worker drones, to be hired and fired and treated how their masters see fit, with impunity.
It is not merely “tidying up” existing legistation, as the Tories, their press sycophants and their apologists suggest, It is a particularly vile piece of legislation designed to kill off Trades Unions.
It should be seen for what it is, exposed, contested and resisted by everyone who works for a living.
Failure to do so will see Britain descend into Fascism.
Selohesra
The comparison to electing MPs is absurd. I would hope everyone could agree that the norm should be that constituencies are represented & that workers are at work. There should be tougher electoral hurdles to deviate from either of those positions.
Jacko
Why do you persist with the comparison with a general election?
General elections are not binary Yes or No choices like strike ballots. There are several choices. So it’s hardly surprising that the winner never gets near 50%. Secondly, union members have chosen to join a union and pay do so. One would expect their level of involvement and interest to be considerably higher than that of the wider electorate, many of whom have no interest in politics at all. So it’s an utterly meaningless comparison. As a professor of accounting you must be aware of these basic facts.
I’d also say this. If the strike action is so just, so principled and so much in the members’ interests -protecting jobs, pay and conditions, standing up for the little man against oppressive and exploitative bosses, I would expect that members would be falling over themselves to support it. So if you can’t even get 20% of your members out to vote for it, what does that tell you? Clearly it can’t be as great a crusade as you think it is.
Prem Sikka
Please read the article. The 2015 general election winner got 22% of the total possible vote. The govt is imposing a 80% requirement for trade union workers in the public sector. So do we have a new principle of voting? Where will it be applied? Government will not permit unions to use electronic ballots, something that is common in many other sectors. The nasty idea is to push up the costs of balloting.
You said, “members have chosen to join a union and pay do so. One would expect their level of involvement and interest to be considerably higher than that of the wider electorate”. The same can also be said of shareholders. But in many companies less than 10% of shareholders vote. Companies use a delegated proxy voting system (illegal for trade unions, local, general, mayoral, EU elections) that enables directors to cast thousands of votes. Companies affect our lives too, but no attempt to democratise these funders of the Conservative Party. Why tis silence on corporate democracy?
I am sure you and many others are beneficiaries of a decent wage, sick pay, holiday pay, health and safety laws, equal pay, gender and racial equality, the NHS, free schools and much more. These things did not happen by magic or were given on a plate by benevolent corporations. A lot of people, including trade unions, struggled to achieve this.
UKLawman
An excellent Article because succinctly it summarises the content of the Bill, and then draws comparisons with comparable organizations.
Many people are against strikes because they seem to be conducted with negativity: as though the objective is to inconvenience the public and blackmail employers. Likewise the violence of some pickets (think “scabs”) is off putting.
The solution to this is that Union leaders should show better communication skills and stop the ‘hate’ comments. Employers and HMG are smarter at public relations, even though their measures may be less meritorious.
However, none of that is addressed by this Bill, and indeed cannot be addressed by legislation. The Bill does seem to be a direct political measure to restrain employees from arguing their cause. It gives Mr Corbyn’s new opposition an opportunity to seem reasonable and supportive of the large majority of us the public: because most of us are employees or reliant on employees.