By Bryan Nott
David Cameron’s announcement a future Conservative government would introduce restrictions on the right to strike in the public sector has a distinct pre-election feel to it.
The strategy is intended to appeal to rightward-leaning voters on the basis that unions are a ‘problem’ that needs sorting out.
READ MORE: {}
Unfortunately, such a move will do nothing to improve public services or reduce the inconvenience of strike action.
In fact, lessons from overseas tell us that such proposals will lead to more disruption, not less.
The statistics are clear; the number of days lost to strike action is down from 12 million in 1980 to 250,000 in 2012.
No one can seriously suggest that trade unions are ‘out of control’ in the public sector.
I only know two people who positively welcome strike action and they are my daughters hankering after a day off school.
Most Read
For employees, employers and the public, strikes are bad news but that does not mean that they should be banned or curtailed. There is still a place for strike action in the 21st century.
Rules to prevent workers from taking strike action will shift the balance of power dramatically in favour of employers.
Across the Atlantic in New York State, strikes in the public sector have been banned since 1966 – leaving industrial relations in tatters with disputes dragging on for ages because neither side have a means of bringing things to a head.
Where strikes have happened, temperatures rise considerably. It has even led to the jailing of a union leader which hardly helps bring parties to the negotiating table.
Logically, trade unions work extremely hard to get the highest turnout in a strike vote because they know it strengthens their negotiating position.
With a low turnout and little appetite for the challenge, even a ‘yes’ vote might not lead to action so imposing thresholds on strike ballots is simply unnecessary.
Demanding a certain level of participation of union members in a strike ballot is simply arbitrary and discounts a lot of people – not least staff who aren’t members but may still be affected.
Don’t miss
Unions cannot ballot non-members or members of other unions. I would encourage everyone to join a union but it is not compulsory, and there is no obligation to engage any further.
The numbers are also fundamentally flawed.
Assuming that there is a minimum turnout threshold of 50 per cent before a strike vote can be considered ‘legitimate’ some very odd results will be thrown up.
Let’s say we have a workforce of 1,000 employees – all of whom are union members.
There is a vote to strike where 251 vote ‘yes’ and 250 vote ‘no’.
That would mean full steam ahead.
If two of the ‘no’ voters had abstained, then the vote would have become invalid because fewer than 50 per cent of members had taken part.
It is a strange situation where not voting is more effective than voting.
And while we are talking numbers, I can’t help but notice the glaringly obvious double standards in politicians requiring trade unions to have a minimum participation or support in a strike ballot.
In 2010, just 23.5 per cent of the electorate (voting and non-voting) wanted David Cameron to be Prime Minister and he still got the keys to number 10.
Apparently abstaining does not matter when it comes to who should run the country.
Personally I am not a fan of abstaining because in life we have to make choices but people are quite entitled to abstain.
If they do they are not casting a less enthusiastic ‘no’ vote they are expressing no opinion.
Strengthening the hand of public sector employers will not improve services.
It is wrong to assume that the public and those that use services have more in common with management than with the staff.
Very often when services are being cut back or staffing is being reduced, the public is just as concerned as the workforce.
With fewer industrial relations hurdles to overcome, decisions to cut harder and deeper will be made with less consideration.
The right to strike was won by hard working people.
Even if a small number of employees feel strongly about an issue, they should be able to strike – with due consideration for their prospects of success.
If they secure concessions from their employer, surely their actions were justifiable.
Most of the power in the employer-employee relationship still lies with the employers who can do an awful many things in the name of making efficiencies.
Strikes may not be popular but if employees have no other means of resolving an issue then it is a recognised and protected means of supporting their position.
On the basis that we do not live in an authoritarian state, this should not change.
* Bryan Nott is a partner at Simpson Millar