The Government is seeking to weaken trade unionism by introducing harsh and restrictive new legislation, says Barrie Clement


Fight is on for union rights Y


ou have to wonder what the unions have done to deserve the extreme legislation planned by the Conservative Government. Effectively unions are to be placed under house arrest. Already subject to laws which Tony Blair


boasted were ‘the most restrictive on trade unions in the western world’, the Government is going much further and presenting the movement with one of the biggest challenges it has faced since its inception. The Tories intend to increase the state’s surveillance over unions by giving the official Certification Officer more powers; making industrial action in many large public sector organisations virtually impossible and – with a degree of cynicism breath-taking even by the standards of the Conservative Party – driving the Labour Party towards bankruptcy. You have to hand it to the Tories for their sheer


authoritarian chutzpah. The problem for unions lies in the superficial fairness of some of the measures. Why shouldn’t the Government insist on a higher turnout in ballots if workers are seeking to take industrial action, especially in ‘essential services’? But let’s take a look at the proposals. The intended laws


would make it extremely difficult for unions in the private sector to defend pay, conditions and jobs at large enterprises. At least 50 per cent of the members have to take part in the ballot for a strike vote to be lawful. Industrial action in “essential services” will be even harder. Not only must half the membership participate in the vote, at least 40 per cent of that membership has to back any action. In other words where 50 out of 100 employees vote in a ballot, 40 of them have to back strikes – or 80 per cent of those voting. This will apply to workers in health, education, transport and local government among other sectors and therefore to some of the lowest paid workers in Britain. Recent strikes on the London Underground would be lawful under the new legislation, but it is an unusual public sector enterprise with a single employer, a limited number


14 | theJournalist


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28