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
So it’s 40% of a 50% turnout? So just 20% of all members have to vote yes, and you consider that punitive, unfair legislation?
Surely if workers were experiencing a genuine, compelling grievance one would expect far more than 20% of members to vote ‘yes’. Of course, if you were a union leader with an extreme political agenda, trying to use your union to exercise disproportionate leverage on the county to further your own political agenda, you might well be concerned, since you know that only a relatively small group of militants in your union would be interested in striking.
I expect someone on here will trot out the lame comparison with general elections. Let me answer that now.
1. General elections are not binary ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions: there are several choices, so it’s very unlikely any result gains more than 40% of the vote.
2. People opt to join a union and pay fees to do so. One would therefore expect their level of engagement with the voting process to be far higher that than the entire voter-eligible population of the UK.
Dave Stewart
It is also worth noting that while banging on about how they want to increase participation in strike ballots as a drive behind these changes the government has flatly refused to allow changes to the way ballots may be conducted (which they use themselves in their own party) which would make participation significantly easier for TU members.
Dave Stewart
So in the up coming EU referendum presumably you think that every registered voter that does not exercise their right to vote will be voting for the status quo?
Jacko
Their views will be unknown. What do you suggest?
Dave Stewart
That is my point their views will be unknown so it would be wrong to assume either way. Likewise when someone chooses not to vote in an industrial action ballot their views are unknown and it would be wrong to assume either way. Any effort to increase participation is of course welcome but as I said in my earlier post the government have flatly rejected all of the proposals that have been shown to actually increase participation (work place ballots and/or eballots). When you take that into account it is clear that the motive behind this has nothing to do with improving work place democracy but with making it harder and harder for public sector workers to make their voices heard. Which is a particularly salient point in the context of massive budget and service cuts in the public sector.