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”
Dave Stewart
So based on your one anecdote (which if true is pretty bad) you feel it right that it should be made increasingly harder for people to take industrial action and that abstentions should always count as no votes.
Also while the government hasn’t said it is about getting better turn outs their main complaint, that a minority of workers who vote can result in industrial action which the majority of workers haven’t actively voted for, could be easily addressed by increasing turn out. Increasing turn out is in everyones best interest whereas this move is clearly designed to restrict peoples right to take industrial action.
Again I’ll ask because you never answered previously, in the up coming EU referendum do you think that registered voters who do not chose to exercise their vote should have their abstentions counted as votes for the status quo? A simple yes or no would be nice.
Michael Anasakta
Unions are the expression of democracy in the workplace. In the exercise of that democracy it is open to union members to decide whether or not to attend a strike meeting and whether or not to to participate in the vote. The majority of votes cast determine the outcome. But maybe what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so perhaps Minister Noles will apply his new rules to not only unions but to the next election in his riding.
Michael Anasakta
It is often true that a minority of workers run a union local. No, that is not the result of a nefarious conspiracy but the result of the majority of workers seemingly complacent enough to not bother to attend union meetings. Jacko’s theory of what union members should do is simply a theory that flies in the face of facts.
Michael Anasakta
Jacko, I sincerely hope you don’t do tax returns for friends.
Chasityrupchurch3
This is a law passd by a goernmnt that received the spport of 2 of the eectorate – and