The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Will Cameron introduce new anti-strike laws?

Ministers are considering a new 50% turnout law to restrict strike action.

By George Eaton Published 20 July 2012 9:05
Around5,500 Border Force staff will strike. Photograph: Getty Images.
Up to 5,500 Border Force staff, members of the PCS union, will strike next Thursday. Photograph: Getty Images.

The decision by PCS union staff to vote in favour of strike action on the eve of the Olympics has revived the debate among Conservatives about whether to tighten the UK's anti-union laws. The latter are already the most restrictive in the western world but Tory MPs want the coalition to go further and ban strikes unless at least 50 per cent of union members participate in the ballot. In the case of the PCS, just 20 per cent did (57 per cent of whom voted in favour of action). Others argue that border guards, like the police, should be banned from striking at all.

Until now, ministers have insisted that they have "no plans" to change the law but today's Telegraph reports that  the government is "now considering legislation to stop unions striking unless more than half their members vote." Aware that Boris Johnson, who has previously called for the introduction of a minimum turnout law, will seize any opportunity to outflank the coalition, Cameron may be tempted to indicate movement on this front.

Then there are those who will only be satisfied if the Prime Minister emulates Ronald Reagan and sacks anyone who participates in the strike. Conservative commentator Donal Blaney declared on Twitter: "Cameron should do a Reagan and fire every single immigration officer who strikes next Thursday. We need to face these selfish militants down". It was in 1981 that the then US president fired 11,000 air traffic controllers who ignored his order to return to work.

Since the PCS, led by Mark Serwotka, is not a Labour-affiliated union, Ed Miliband has found it easier to condemn this strike than others. But if he is retain credibility among the wider union movement, he must voice his opposition to any change in the law.

Tags: Trade Unions  David Cameron  Mark Serwotka  

 
 

19 comments

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

martybee's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 21:09 — martybee (not verified)

Compulsory voting us the answer.

Eddy S's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 18:14 — Eddy S (not verified)

this is a very sensible policy- why isn't it policy now it makes perfect democratic sense.

we should not reject it.

Stuart Eels's picture

Sat, 2012-07-21 16:23 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Mark Serwotka will lead his union into the fringes, just as happened with the miners and call me Dave will be hailed as Hero by the right wing press.

They should both be sent to a desert isle together!

Talking about turnouts, I think the devolution votes in the 1990s were a very small percentage of those entitled to vote. It should be an offence not to vote as I believe it is in Australia.

Fraziel1's picture

Sat, 2012-07-21 00:34 — Fraziel1

I support the right to strike and agree that the immigration staff have been treated appallingly and should strike, but not at the time planned. Serwotka is so far to the left and hates this government so much that it is clouding his judgement. He has made some major political mistakes due to his entrenched ideology and he is about to make another one. We already have tough laws anti union though so a law on minimum turnout is not appropriate.

Nertry's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 20:34 — Nertry (not verified)

=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com
=== http://www.top4biz.com

Sammy's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 19:00 — Sammy (not verified)

It would be good if a law was passed that a government couldn't be formed unless 50 per cent of the electorate turned out

Indu Pendent's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 13:50 — Indu Pendent

George
Please could you clarify what you mean by a "Labour-affiliated union"?

Is it one which is democratically elected Labour MPs find it difficult to remain independent of?

just saying 's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 13:15 — just saying (not verified)

I'm not sure about points 2 and 3 swatantra, how do you define a 'national event'? and more importantly unions actually tend to shoot themselves in the foot with strikes at times like this. The PCS have made themselves so unpopular with the public that the Government have no incentive to conceed.

Ending political funding is also not really the issue, you can choose not to vote for Labour if you don't like the union association.

On the turnout issue though you might have something. And before everyone says, 'but we elect politicians on less', only one general election since 1945 has had a turnout below 60% (2001 - 59.4%) and local election turnout has averaged more like 40% over the last decade. Anyway local elections are different to strike votes. Not choosing to use you democratic right is a choice for which you pay by having no say over your representative, while taking industrial action affects many more people than just yourself.

Robert Taggart's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 11:17 — Robert Taggart

Remarkable to think - this was one of Maggies few Union Reform oversights.
Bring it on - as soon as possible !

swatantra's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:28 — swatantra

Yes. Long overdue. We should do the same.
1 A minimum turnout of 33% otherwise invalid
2 A moritorium on strikes threatened around national events which make the country look pretty stupid to the rest of the world
3 The killer clause: State Funding fo Political Parties so thy are not in the pocket of the Unions or Big Business

Eddy S's picture

Sun, 2012-07-22 18:16 — Eddy S (not verified)

33% - why so low. above 50% seems democratically fair.

Dark Heart of Toryland's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:48 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

!. Why should the same not apply to elections to parliament and local government?
2. A rule that strikes should be banned so that the country doesn't look 'stupid' would be self-defeating, for it would make the country look very stupid - leaving aside the fact that it would invite exploitation by unscrupulous employers (G4S and A4E being obvious examples). And the scope of such 'national events' would inevitably expand rapidly.
3. The very fact that the UK still has the toughest anti-union laws in the western world after 13 years of a Labour government is pretty conclusive proof that Labour is not in the pockets of the unions, but rather in the pocket of big business.

Lucidus's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 09:41 — Lucidus (not verified)

If you had a 50% minimum turnout law for political elections, then most local elections and some parliamentary elections would be invalid.

It's difficult for politicians to argue that one law should apply to unions but another for themselves.

Dark Heart of Toryland's picture

Fri, 2012-07-20 10:49 — Dark Heart of Toryland (not verified)

I fear you underestimate politicians' capacity for double-think.

Latest tweets