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”
Eoireitum
Could we address, thru legislation, the mass of non-unionised workers – the majority of us. Unionisation is important – don’t get me wrong but can we be an inclusive party that recognises the realities.
stevep
Fracking could bring untold wealth – but to who? If private companies are allowed to do it, they will reap the benefit. If they are foreign companies, then the the benefit goes elsewhere.
O.K. there will be jobs created and ancillary benefits, but what part does the taxpayer play in the form of grants and subsidies? How will we benefit?
What happened to North sea oil should be a warning. The oil bounty that should have gone to the UK in the `80s to better all our lives was squandered paying for the benefits of 3,000,000+ unemployed and tax cuts for the wealthy as part of the pursuit of Tory far-right dogma.
Norway, in contrast, used their oil revenue to build a better society. It still owns 70% of it.
Regarding Luddites, they had a point. Who benefits from technological progress? The skilled? Not if they can be replaced with technology. Some might reskill, but how far do you take reskilling?
The unskilled? They will be on their own as technology largely makes them redundant and a reduced welfare state propels them into penury.
Mass protests and civil disobedience as a result? – This is where the raft of anti-terror legislation and anti-union legislation comes in.
The Legislation, which curtails civil liberties, has been sold to us to prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack, but also serves to protect the wealthy from the masses when the penny drops they`ve been hoodwinked.
Who are the terrorists? The odd extremist or group of extremists? We managed pretty well for 30 years under threat from an IRA mainline bombing campaign without such legislation.
Or are the real terrorists governments who have worsened the living standards of the majority of us.
Or the banks, who effectively created more havoc to the world`s economic system than any terrorist.
Is the definition of a terrorist some one who deliberately puts the lives of a person or persons at risk of death or injury?
If so, does a pensioner starving to death in a cold unheated room as a result of government welfare cuts carry the same weight as someone killed with a bullet or bomb?
Everything governments have done or legislated for in the last 36 years has been for the benefit of the wealthy few.
It`s time Britain woke up to that fact and vow to change things via democratic means while they still can.
blarg1987
Closing down the towns major employer to move it off shore just for a few extra quid is going to affect an awful lot of innocent people as well as not be popular.
Mike Stallard
On the radio the other day, 90+ year old Dennis Healey said it was North Sea oil which had saved the Labour government. The industrial North of England and Scotland is what brought us a lot of prosperity too. And, yes, there was the occasional train crash, the occasional mine collapse and lots and lots of people died early from lung problems caused by the filthy air.
Now we “debate” instead – and grow poorer by the day.
But – hey! It’s not our fault! It’s the bankers! Or the politicians! Or the EU! Or Mrs Thatcher!
stevep
Not sure what you are trying to say, Mike. If you are saying the industrial revolution and the industries of the north brought prosperity, it did – to a relative handful of wealthy landowners, industrialists and merchants. The vast majority of people experienced child labour, poor working conditions, long hours, dire living conditions and the prospect of the workhouse if they went under.
Most people didn`t reap any benefit from industrialisation until they collectivised and formed Trades Unions to fight for a better quality of life.
Collectivisation was opposed bitterly by the establishment using legislation, hired thugs, the police and the military to attempt to keep people in their place.
The living standards we enjoy today reflect the sacrifices our forebears chose to make to try to create a better, fairer, more equal society.
That ethos has been largely undone by Conservative governments dedicated to turning the clock back.
This is why we must oppose the current anti-union legislation going through parliament and fight to elect a government which will support ordinary people and put fairness, equality and decency at the top of the agenda.