In this issue:
Hundreds attend National Demonstration on the Housing and Homeless crisis
Academic staff in DCU concerned by workload and precarious jobs
Dreaming of Bethlehem
Palestinian flag raised at Liberty Hall
Catering group Aramark should respect its workers
Crown Paints Ireland asked to halt plant closure
Workers Republic
Independent expert to examine CIE pension scheme
Guidelines for workers in the Home Care Sector
Disability workers start ‘Stronger Together’ campaign
SIPTU disappointment at planned closure of SuperValu stores in Clonmel and Carlow town
Support Staff conduct two-hour work stoppage in Portiuncula Hospital
Climate change protest
EU fund providing opportunities for former airplane maintenance workers
Certificate in Trade Union Studies Awards Ceremony
Edenderry Power Ltd refuse to attend Labour Court
Call for publication of HSE National Ambulance Review
More Health Care Assistants needed to alleviate hospital crisis
SIPTU offers condolences and calls for solidarity in response to Paris attacks
A union stalwart: Dick Duff
TASC research confirms growing exploitation in the hospitality sector
1916 Commemorative Medal Set
Signed Limited Edition Print of James Connolly by Jim Fitzpatrick
Fair Shop
Reclaim the Vision of 1916 App
Tackling Ireland’s housing crisis
UK Trade Union Bill: Latest in line of global attacks on right to strike
Supporting Quality
JLT Home Insurance
One Direct - Car Insurance
Travel Insurance
Taxback
Young Workers Network
SIPTU Basic English Scheme
Larkin Credit Union
Fair Hotel
Useful links
Send to a friend »Subscribe »Search past issues »Contact us »Print all articles »


siptu2



Visit our website
UK Trade Union Bill: Latest in line of global attacks on right to strike
By Helen Russell

Across the globe trade unions are faced with increasing restrictionson their ability to take industrial action. Within daysof being elected to power, the British Conservative governmentannounced its intention to make it harder for trade unionsto take industrial action and introduced the Trade Union Bill, describing it as a “legislation to reform trade unions andto protect essential public services against strikes” (QueenElizabeth II 2015).

The Bill is an assault on British trade unions, containing a raftof draconian measures designed to stifle their ability to protectworkers’ rights. Although a continuation of the anti-tradeunion legislation passed since the 1980s by Conservativegovernments, the Trade Union Bill goes further than anythingthat Margaret Thatcher introduced.

New thresholds on union balloting
The Bill contains new thresholds and minimum turnouts forany industrial action ballot. Currently in the UK there is nominimum threshold for turnouts and ballots only require asimple majority to take action. However, for a ballot to beaccepted now, unions in all sectors have to ensure that 50percent of members vote.

The situation is even worse in ‘important public services’where there will be a double threshold. Not only must 50 percentof members turn out to vote but also 40 percent of theentire membership must vote in favour. This in effect means80 percent for those voting on a 50 percent ballot and thatabstentions will count as a vote against. For example, if 100 members are balloted, at least 50 members must vote in theballot and 40 must vote yes for industrial action to be permitted.

Of grave concern is that the Bill also contains an ordermakingpower which gives the government the power to definemore specifically which occupations will be classified asimportant public services. This has resulted in Members of Parliament (MPs) debating the Bill without knowing exactly which groups of workers the double threshold will cover. It is likely that the UK Civil Contingencies Act definition of essentialservices will be applied, which identifies nine areas: water,energy, food, health, emergency services, communications, transport, government and finance. This is far broader thanthe definition of ‘essential services’ recognised in internationallaw and will go beyond the public sector into the privatesector.The new laws would also require unions to give employersfourteen days-notice of strike action, which is doublethe current seven days-notice required and unions willalso have to re-ballot for action on the same disputeevery four months, which is designed to stop long-termindustrial action.

The UK already has some of the most restrictive andcomplex legislation governing industrial action balloting,including compulsory postal rather than workplaceballots and this new legislation will make it extremelydifficult, if not impossible for unions to strike.

Ending the payment of union dues via wages
Alongside the Bill the government has indicated that itplans to abolish check-off in the public sector. In the UK, many union members’ dues are deducted automaticallyfrom their wages, called check-off. This method of paymenthas already been attacked in the civil service resultingin members of Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) no longer being able to pay their dues this way. Members will have to set up a direct debit from their bank which adds an unnecessary barrier to membership, making it likely that union membership will further reduce.Use of agency staff during strikes. Since 1973 it has been illegal in the UK to use agency staff to cover the work of striking workers. However, the government plans to scrap this legislation and allow agency workers to replace striking workers. The proposed requirement to force unions to give fourteen days’ notice of strike action means that employers will have more time to make the arrangements to contract agency workers to work during strikes. This puts the UK out of step with recent initiatives in many European countries where large employment agencies across the EU and the Ciett (International Confederation of Private Employment Agencies) have agreed with unions not to use agency workers as strike-breakers. There is also an obvious risk of negative impact on the quality of services and potential health and safety implications by allowing untrained and inexperienced agency workers to cover for striking staff.

Increased role of Certification Officer
The Bill will increase the role and powers of the CertificationOfficer, the government regulator for trade unionsand employers’ associations. They will be able to access and confiscate union membership lists and investigate unionseven where no complaint against the union has beenreceived. Unions will have to provide the Certification Officer with detailed information on industrial action, disputesand expenditure on political activities. This is clearlyan attempt to over-burden unions with bureaucracy. Furthermoreblack-listing has been a common practice in the UK, particularly in the construction industry and has resultedin union activists being denied work due to their union activities (Ewing 2009). The unions are therefore rightly concernedas to how this information might be misused againstmembers. The Certification Officer will be able to imposefines of up to £20,000 on unions for non-compliance and toadd insult to injury the government will be able to chargeunions to pay for the running costs of the CertificationOfficer. As Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TradeUnion Congress (TUC) warns, the Certification Officer willbecome “investigator, judge and jury of trade union activity”(Grady 2015).

Other proposals include limits on what unions can spend onsupporting political parties and political campaigning andalso reducing the amount of paid time-off for trade union officials.

Ironically, the level of industrial action and days lost tostrikes in the UK is at a historically low level, with just 647,000 days lost to industrial action between 2010-2014 compared to 7,213,000 between 1980-1989 (Office for National Statistics 2014). The proposals are therefore a disproportionate response to a problem which does not really existand are clearly ideologically driven, with the Bill beingthe latest in a long line of anti-trade union laws introducedby the Conservatives, who view unions as interfering withthe free market. The government talks about this being partof a modernisation agenda, yet of course when the unionshave proposed modernising the ballot process by introducingonline voting they have been ignored as this would inevitably lead to a higher turnout, which the governmentwants to prevent.The unions are united in their opposition to the Bill and theTUC has submitted a complaint to the ILO Committee ofExperts arguing that the measures in the Bill contraveneConventions 87 ‘Freedom of Association and Protection ofthe Right to Organise’, 98 ‘Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining’, 135 ‘Workers' Representatives’ and 151 ‘LabourRelations (Public Service)’.

Opposition is rapidly growing, even from the business andhuman resources sectors, who argue that the measures willbe detrimental to partnership working and positive industrialrelations. In fact, such is the extent of opposition in thedevolved nations that it looks as if some of the measures willnot even be introduced; in October the Welsh Assembly votedto reject the Bill and all thirty-two councils in Scotlandannounced they will ignore the new legislation. The electionof Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party also meansthat there will be a strong parliamentary opposition to theBill. The TUC organised a large lobby of Parliament againstthe Bill on 2 November and the following day the governmentbacked down on a number of proposed measures inthe Bill around picketing and protesting. For example thegovernment has been forced to abandon proposals to makeunions publish protest and picketing plans, including plansfor the use of social media during industrial action. In additionthey have withdrawn proposals to create a new criminaloffence around picketing and also the requirement forpicket supervisors to wear an arm-band and carry a letter ofauthorisation to be presented to the police or other peopleupon request.

Pressure from unions and human rights groups has made adifference and won some concessions. However, at its thirdreading at the House of Commons on 10 November the Billwas passed by a majority of 34 votes. It now goes to theHouse of Lords before returning to the House of Commonsfor the final reading in early 2016. Despite this setback theunions need to continue to mobilise their members to campaignagainst the Bill and the TUC needs to develop a strategyon what unions should do if it becomes law. This couldinclude lodging a complaint with the European Court of HumanRights, campaigning to get local councils to pledgethat they will not scrap the check-off system or employagency workers during strikes and using other noncompliancemeasures that make the draconian laws unworkable.

Helen Russell is an alumnus of the Global Labour University.She is currently the Trade Union Training Officer ofthe Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP). Previouslyshe worked for the British unions UNISON and NASUWT The Teachers’ Union. This article is written in a personal capacity.

References:
Ewing, K (2009) Ruined Lives: Blacklisting in the UK Construction Industry.A report for UCATT. London: UCATTGrady, F. (2015) The Trade Union Bill: Our Panel’s Reaction 16 September2015. Available at: (http://classonline.org.uk/blog/item/the-tradeunion-bill-our-panels-reaction) (accessed 19 October 2015)Office for National Statistics (2014) Labour Disputes, Annual Article2014 (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/bus-register/labour-disputes/annual-article-2014/art---labour-disputes-2014.html) (accessed 9 November2015)Queen Elizabeth II (2015) Her Majesty’s most gracious speech to bothHouses of Parliament at the State Opening of Parliament 2015. 27May 2015. Available at: (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2015) (accessed 18 October 2015)
Facebook Twitter
Newsletter Marketing Powered by Newsweaver