Strike law reforms

[Simster]

I'm not a natural Conservative voter but I do feel these reforms are long overdue, so I have to say I applaud Cameron for having the gonads to look at this. You'd never see Labour do this as they are still in the pockets of the unions to an extent, but for years some of the unions of running essential public services have been taking the piss with their willingness to inconvenience the public by calling strikes with a very small mandate.

To clarify, the proposed changes would mean that strikes affecting essential public services (listed as health, transport, fire services or schools) will need to be backed by 40% of eligible union members, and a minimum 50% turnout in strike ballots. The government also proposes to lift restrictions on the use of agency staff to replace striking workers.

That seems fair, surely? Nobody has removed the right to withdraw labour here. I think the debate is whether the right balance appears to have been struck. Personally, with this legislation, I think that it has.

And for a bit of balance, in some countries (Spain, for example), workers are not allowed to bring ANY public service to a halt with strike action. Provision for a bare minimum working service must be made.

Let's see what NSC thinks.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Not a natural Conservative either but this is surely spot on, particularly with regard to agency workers. Essential public services are essential public services so running them with a minimal possibility of disruption whilst maintaining workers rights seems the correct balance.

It is a bit rich that it's being brought in by an organisaiton that only got 37% of the vote themselves but it's surely for the overall good of the country so I'm for.

 

[Surrey_Albion]

The fact that rail staff have got a pay rise for "all their hard work getting trains running on time" between London and Brighton thats a lie and prices will need to be raised again for a shoddy service to pay for it, do yes any change from this union blackmail is good

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Utterly agree with the reforms. I know those against will point towards the fact that the Tories didn't get 40% of the GE vote but nor did Labour previously. Two bad election processes don't make a right. Strike if you want but you should not be affecting your 'customers' - unless of course you're stupid enough to want your 'customers' to turn against you !!!! Sadly the Unions jump to strike action before actually coming up with other innovative and intelligent ideas for hit the employers - teachers being the prime example.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We need unions now more than ever. I voted for the first option.

 

[Simster]

It is a bit rich that it's being brought in by an organisaiton that only got 37% of the vote themselves but it's surely for the overall good of the country so I'm for.

Yes I'm a little uncomfortable with this too, but taking this to it's logical conclusion, one could argue that all the laws ever made in this country were done in the name of the minority!

 

[Simster]

We need unions now more than ever.

Agreed. Call me when there is legislation proposed for banning unions.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agreed. Call me when there is legislation proposed for banning unions.

I will. But in the meantime I want to keep laws as they are.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

The only thing I know about strikes is when I've been affected, so I probably have a jaundiced anti-union view. I have never been a member of a union or worked anywhere where anybody has been in one. I do vaugely remember the 3-day weeks in the 70s, so that probably implanted a view at an early age.

 

[Stat Brother]

I 100% agree that strike action needs to be the wishes of the majority of the staff, but this does give me pause for thought:-

The government also proposes to lift restrictions on the use of agency staff to replace striking workers.

 

[Bozza]

A good test, this, to flush out those who would never back anything proposed by the Conservatives, because they are the Conservatives. And the first catch has already been made I note.

Nothing but common sense going on here. FOR.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The government also proposes to lift restrictions on the use of agency staff to replace striking workers.

Another good thing IMHO. Just because a union member decides to withdraw their labour I fail to see why an employer shouldn't be allowed to continue their business, albiet in a more expensive way.

 

[drew]

Utterly agree with the reforms. I know those against will point towards the fact that the Tories didn't get 40% of the GE vote but nor did Labour previously. Two bad election processes don't make a right. Strike if you want but you should not be affecting your 'customers' - unless of course you're stupid enough to want your 'customers' to turn against you !!!! Sadly the Unions jump to strike action before actually coming up with other innovative and intelligent ideas for hit the employers - teachers being the prime example.

Typical response.

You seem to suggest that unions strike first and talk later whereas surely the opposite is more like the truth. Perhaps you could provide links to info to support your hypothesis.

As for the reforms, they sound logical but, as others state, they fly in the face of democracy. ie, in other elections, you just have to have a majority of those that chose to vote. Perhaps the answer would be not to impose the 50% minimum turnout but possible have a higher percentage required to give a mandate for strike action, say 60% of those that vote. It still goes against the principle of democracy.

 

[Stat Brother]

Another good thing IMHO. Just because a union member decides to withdraw their labour I fail to see why an employer shouldn't be allowed to continue their business, albiet in a more expensive way.

Even though it removes the incentive to negotiate a settlement to genuine work place issues?

 

[Simster]

I will. But in the meantime I want to keep laws as they are.

I actually think these reforms could strengthen unionised labour and the union movement. The problem we have at the moment, is that it is all too easy for union officials to call a strike thus impacting millions of innocent members of the public. With these changes, a strike will be more difficult to call (but still pretty FAR from difficult) so when one is called, it is more likely to garner public support.

 

[Simster]

Another good thing IMHO. Just because a union member decides to withdraw their labour I fail to see why an employer shouldn't be allowed to continue their business, albiet in a more expensive way.

It's not a good thing at all. It removes the impact of the right to withdraw labour. You talk about employers, but in the case of rail companies, who do you think ends up paying for these agency staff? It won't be hitting the bottom line of the executives, nor impacting dividend payments. Not when there are millions of MUGS with no choice but to continue to use their local rail company even when they are told to pay for another "inflation +5%" increase in rail fares.

 

[happypig]

I went on strike for 2/3 weeks in 1987 (NCU v British Telecom). I didn't want to go on strike because I was buying my first flat at the time but I voted for industrial action.
The reasons were that Telecom had made huge profits on the back of privatisation and we (the workers) wanted a reasonable pay settlement that reflected that success (a not outrageous for the time 4.5% springs to mind but I could be wrong). Management refused and offered something like 1.5% so an overtime ban was imposed. One Thursday selected people were called in to se their manager and told to sign a bit of paper agreeing to work Saturday overtime; many of those chosen never worked OT. They refused so were suspended, triggering a walk out. Every single person, throughout the UK who walked out did so to support their friends and colleagues.

For that reason, if no other, strike action should always be a viable option. If you want to restrict, by law, who can strike and when, then it's only fair to limit, by law, provocative behaviour by management designed to escalate industrial action.

Oh, for what it's worth, the union offered, unconditionally, to maintain essential services such as hospitals, emergency services, doctors. Management in South Downs district refused this unless we also agreed to maintain big business such as Amex, Legal & General, IBM etc. In the end, there were a emergency services needing attention and they were done by local managers with unofficial assistance from our members; I don't know of a single person, even the most militant, who wouldn't have turned out to ensure that the essential services were maintained.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

You seem to suggest that unions strike first and talk later whereas surely the opposite is more like the truth. Perhaps you could provide links to info to support your hypothesis.

I haven't suggested that at all. I've suggested that after talks have broken down that unions jump to strike action. Let's take the teachers as an example - straight to strike action rather than say refusing to monitor exams, stay past 4pm or refusing to attend staff meetings etc etc etc

 

[Ernest]

I see the Groovy Gang out in full force, the proposed law is nothing but an anti trade union stance, why don't the government make online and text voting legal for strike ballots if they're so concerned about the turn out ? As it stands it is hypocritical that a government that didn't get elected by the laws they propose wish to impose it on working people and they call themselves the party of the working people now, f**king laughable and hopefully it will have the opposite effect and ensure more people join unions and vote for strikes in ballots.

 

[El Presidente]

I'm a member of two trade unions. Withdrawal of labour is a last resort action. It involves a loss of pay and pension contributions so hurts the striker financially