David Cameron made significant waves yesterday both at Prime Minister’s Questions and in a Sun article about reforming Britain’s antiquated trade union laws. He
was responding to a favoured tactic of the new wave of militant trade unionists: threatening action at times that most inconvenience or imperil the safety of the general public. We have seen
this with the FBU’s dispute (over Bonfire Night), Unite with British Airways (over the Christmas period), and the RMT with London Underground (again, over Christmas). Some union leaders
now seem prepared to ruin what should be the two biggest highlights on our national calendar: the Royal Wedding in April and the Olympics in 2012.
Of course, it is unlikely that rank-and-file trade union members would support such moves, but their views are not always heard. Union ballots often have extremely low turnouts; but nevertheless enjoy complete legal protection, so a minority can often swing the result. For example, the militant head of Unite, Len McCluskey (who described December’s violent student demonstrations as ‘magnificent’ and called for unions to begin ‘preparing for battle’), was recently elected by a mere 6.7 percent of the eligible membership. Though trade unions often complain of ‘draconian’ restrictions on their ability to strike, they and their members in fact enjoy greater immunities than any other party in contract law.
But what can the government do? A start would be to make it a requirement that the majority of union members vote for a strike to go ahead. Policy Exchange made clear recommendations along these lines in a study published last September – recommendations endorsed by the CBI, Boris Johnson and others. Operationally, this would involve primary legislation, amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. This would also be an opportune moment to tidy up other loopholes. One is that strike ballot papers need not contain information about the nature and length of industrial action, meaning ordinary members are often misled. Others include: ending all government funding of trade unions, ensuring that membership fees are not taken direct from pay packets, and curtailing the anomaly whereby strike ballots in the public sector can be held nationally, rather than for each employer (section 228A). In a turbulent 2011, this is unlikely to prevent many strikes – but it would at least ensure that a militant minority does not unfairly speak on behalf of the whole membership.
No one wants to make it impossible for unions to function. But the intentions of militants to exploit our outdated industrial relations laws will soon become too serious to ignore.
Ed Holmes is a Research Fellow in the Economics Unit at Policy Exchange and works on public spending, taxation policy and fiscal consolidation.
Comments