This week, Sajid Javid announced the reforms he plans to make to strike ballots in the public sector that would affect ‘essential public services’ though bizarrely it would make no difference to the result of the strike ballot recently held by the RMT so the question might well be has he gone far enough?
I’m not sure the debate on this issue has even begun to address all the issues.
Public v private
I think one has to recognise the many factors in play around trade unions and their relevance, industrial action, the protection of the public and the bizarre yet significant effect trade union militancy has on the structure of public services and the integral and increasing role of the private sector in contributing to the provision of same.
There is a hidden factor which is never spoken about yet needs to form part of the argument. It is a factor that is impeded directly because of trade union militancy and makes public provision of services much less likely to be seen as attractive so they actively discourage a process that in principle they would like to see extended. Outsourcing of services, public private partnerships, or any description one can give to the commissioning of private businesses to undertake public sector works, has as one of its driving forces the elimination of militant trade unionism. Everyone knows that private businesses, small and large, do not represent the bottomless pit of money that the public sector appears to do and such evident limitation of funds constrains militancy very effectively.
The RMT is a classic example. Already an overpaid group of workers, they seek to extract even more from their publicly funded employers whom, it has to be said, have buckled before from public pressure and the real need to keep the trains running. This simple exertion of muscle from a self interested group has created misery for commuters time and time again, yet it is set to continue and one has to consider the likelihood that, were it to be financed privately, strikes would become a less easy option. I should point out that any cohesive band of workers who can cause massive disruption for very little personal sacrifice will usually see such an option as attractive and, of course, it is always easy to convince people that they deserve more.
The point behind this is that private provision isn’t always the best way to run a public service but in the absence of effective restraint upon trade unions desperately seeking some sort of relevance, it often isn’t worth the hassle. Simply outsource the cleaning contract, surgical operations, or emptying bins, or any manner of public works now undertaken by private businesses, makes strike action much less likely. There may often be the option of a good publicly-run operation that would be better and cheaper with better conditions and pay for its employees yet it may not be worth the risk when at the drop of a hat industrial action is threatened and taken every time a dispute arises.
It is perfectly possible to run and manage a whole range of public services, within the state structure equally as effectively as private companies and where that is allowed to happen it can be a better and more cost effective mechanism.
Eliminating public sector strikes would do much to discourage outsourcing and strengthen the hand of public sector provision so in a delightful twist of irony; that which most trade unions would prefer is made much less likely by their disruptive potential and adherence to strike action as an appropriate and proper tool.
A duty of government
Public sector strikes are of themselves counter-productive. The only people hurt by such stoppages are the parents, the travellers, the residents or the patients and ancillary businesses that need the services to operate all the time. It is a duty of government to make sure they do.
Political strikes should not be permitted. All public sector strikes are political in nature because the public sector does not operate as a business model so the inherent profitability factor so necessary in a private business doesn’t exist in state-funded operations, so in this scenario strikes do not threaten commercial activity. The original and whole point of a strike is an economic one. Pay the workers more or allow better conditions as opposed to losing income and clients by resisting the demands. Strikes work in this commercial environment because sometimes it is simply cheaper for the company to agree the costs demanded by their workers. In the public sector, though, this balance isn’t there. The state is seen as an unlimited source of funding so the public suffers when resource allocation has already been made with social and pragmatic intent, and that shouldn’t be usurped by a handful of dissidents.
As well as being arguable that the industrial relations act 1971 and multiple amendments since have removed completely the original relevance of trade unions, it is also arguable that they now exist only as mutual clubs with services one can get anywhere else, and that as a direct result of this they consistently need to fabricate relevance to keep members and sustain their existence. Militancy is one way of doing this because without that exposure stimulation they may simply sink into irrelevance as an organ of the past for which society has no further use.
The government is moving in the right direction, but for the life of me I cannot see why a small section of any publicly funded organisation should be able to bring it to a standstill even if every member of that section wants to. It seems much fairer that a majority of all the people who work in that organisation, those who would be affected by a strike, should also have a say and if that majority isn’t achieved then a strike cannot go ahead. It shouldn’t matter if they are members of a particular union, or any union; if they are to be affected they must be consulted.
A strike may be a valid response to an intransigent employer but if it is justifiable then a majority of support throughout the affected section of the organisation should be possible. Representation, however is different and one of the roles currently undertaken by unions, so if they are effective in this respect then perhaps there is some relevance, but bashing the public for the benefit of the few is an argument being lost amongst the populace as a whole and the strike weapon should be eliminated in state funded enterprises as soon as possible.
This is an interesting and well-reasoned essay, but I can’t advocate the conclusion. Strikes are disruptive and costly, true, but they are a last resort when an employer (even the state) refuses to provide appropriate wages and benefits to its employees. Working for the state does not involve forfeiting your economic rights. It’s simply arbitrary to deny collective bargaining to state employees but not private employees, and there are millions of employees who straddle the line in various ways.
If they don’t like their job then let them go and find another one. That is what those of us in the real world have to do.
Like those working for the minimum wage on zero hour contracts?
Bit by bit the rights of the people are being eroded the government should remember it is the right of every worker to with hold his labour despite what the law says
In reality people have more rights and freedoms today than ever in our history with the possible exception of unborn children so your first comment is just wrong and simply fanciful rhetoric. Secondly no person has the right to break the law, that’s called anarchy.
If you fancy a bit of the latter why not try a holiday in Libya?
Since Thatcher we’ve seen a constant erosion of workers rights. How can you claim that people now have more rights and freedoms than ever before?
I do believe in Hitler’s Germany workers had to get their employers permission to change jobs! Would you therefore accuse German workers wanting to change their workplace of being anarchists and law breakers?
You clearly frame your perspective very narrowly with llittle regard for accuracy or truth. It’s a typically left wing approach to pretend life in Britain is somehow bad.
If you actually compare major societlal changes it is self evident that this last 50 years or so has seen economic and social improvements beyond anything formerly experienced.
The last fifty years have seen economic and social improvements for some at the expense of many. The last fifty years have seen unemployment increase from almost zero to a substantial part of the workforce despite many efforts to bend the figures.The last fifty years has seen an assault on workers rights and remuneration with zero hour contracts and minimum wages. Fifty years ago workers did not need government intervention to ensure that they could afford a basic living standard and a roof over their heads.
You clearly frame your perspective very narrowly with little regard for accuracy or truth.It’s a typical right wing approach to pretend that life in Britain is somehow wonderful
.
Not so much right wing as reflective of reality. For example are you suggesting that after the minimum wage is worse than before?
The flawed narrative about zero hours contracts, austerity And food banks clearly did.not match most peoples experiences.
David, you say the narrative about zero hour contracts austerity and food banks is flawed!
In what respect do you consider it flawed?
Are you denying that more people than ever before have to rely on food banks and this increase is not caused by austerity (which is a response to the financial crisis caused not by the victims of austerity but by those who have benefited greatly from it).
The minimum wage was brought in as a result of increasing poverty brought on by legislation emasculating the unions.
For a
better perspective on poverty see
http://data.jrf.org.uk/data/relative-absolute-time/.
We are still spending about £90bn more than we earn. The more usual term for
that is profligacy. Austerity describes the act of living without unnecessary
things or in extreme hardship which isn’t the case (except for a transient minority who do need help) and compared to countries
that really are feeling the pinch we do not compare. Food banks are a modern
phenomenon (though they have existed before) but apparently not linked to ‘austerity’
as Germany services about the same proportion of people from this form of
charity and they don’t have an ‘austerity’ program. It’s well worth remembering
also that charities are businesses with some different rules and whatever the
economic situation they are likely to remain in existence for some people some
of the time. After all they do pay some eye watering salaries. Many people who use
these do so due to delays in benefit payments, which is a resolvable issue.
I’m not suggesting that life in the UK is the idyll you seek but compared both to other
countries and our own history it is probably as good as it has ever been despite the obvious need to live within our means.
With £2tn of debt on the horizon and £4bn in monthly interest payments (rising to £5bn
2016/17) this waste of money simply has to stop and it is already my grandchildren and great grandchildren who will have to pay it back.
A further example of why this narrative was flawed was ably demonstrated by the left of centre
parties who made it their principle message which simply wasn’t accepted hence the destruction of the LD and the virtual demise of Labour.
At the end of WWII we had a debt far in excess of the present debt (as a proportion of GDP) but we didn’t whinge on about out grandchildren having to pay it off. We didn’t put a good proportion of the workforce on the dole and slash what few benefits they got. We buckled down and grew the economy.
There are no left of centre parties left in this country apart from the Greens.
It seems you now agree that we are better off today than in the past and whilst the Greens are certainly to the left of even the SNP to regard their proposals with any credulity one really need do be numerically illiterate.
How do you work out that I agree that we are better off than in the past? But then if you claim that why the need for austerity? If we are better off than before (despite the longest sustained fall in wages since records began) why the need to slash, slash slash? I find the average UKIP supporter to be totally innumerate. They usually claim that a saving of a few £ million will quickly pay off a debt of a few £trillion.
To pay off a debt one firstly has to earn more than one spends, a proportion of the surplus income over expenditure goes to pay down the debt. That’s pretty elementary and applies to governments and well as
individuals so you may be able to agree with it. If not there is really no hope.
To get to this situation a government has to either increase income or reduce expenditure, usually a combination of both, simply spending more whilst earning less has the opposite effect to a point where the national debt is so great that external circumstances dictate fiscal policy and that is
a place no country wants to be in.
Between 2010 and 2015 government spending increased as did tax overall but growth reduced the deficit nominally as it is conveniently measured against GDP. Your description of slash slash slash couldn’t be more wrong. Even with controlling expenditure it still goes up.
Your economic outlook whilst benevolent in concept defies
reality which is why the British people will never swallow the spend until it hurts philosophy of well meaning dreamers .
So the reality of the debt at the end of WWII being eliminated by spending and spending to generate income is, according to you, wrong! What did happen then?
You demonstrate but fail to see how ineffective controlling expenditure really is., as you notice expenditure still goes up as does the debt.
Nobody is advocating “spend until it hurts” but I bet if you asked the man on the street whether the government should spend on keeping people unemployed or spend on getting them back to productive work I could have a pretty good guess at their answer. The problem is they don’t have that option, indeed those in charge will deny that that option exists.
Remember when Thatcher set out to cut public spending but ended up pushing it through the roof?
Oops! – you’ve brought Hitler into the argument, which is a sure sign of weakness resorting to extreme examples. How is it relevant that workers in Hitler’s Germany had to get permission to change jobs? That criminal regime has been extinct for 70 years along with all the laws it passed and there is no reasonable comparison that can be made between it and the conditions of workers in any modern democracy.
As a member of the PDMH debate society (Please Don’t Mention Hitler) I urge you to resist all temptation to drag him in. It’s an automatic argument-loser.
Why deny history, after all those who ignore it are bound to repeat.
I recently had to write a scathing reply to a woman Labour councillor who wrote a pre-election letter to our local paper claiming that UKIP was the equivalent of the Nazis in 30s Germany and warning that another holocaust was nigh.
This is the kind of scurrilous nonsense that cannot go unchallenged and you’re indulging in it now. It’s intellectual laziness: throw in Hitler and the Nazis and voila! – you’ve proved your point – except that you haven’t done anything but perpetuate a cliched bogeyman. And if you’re so interested in lessons from history, why stick to Hitler? What’s wrong with Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Mugabe, Papa Doc, Gadaffi, Sadaam Hussein, Bin Laden, Gengis Khan, Attila the Hun and a load of other unenlightened weirdos? The fact is that the last ‘orrible dictator we had was Henry VIII and we learned enough from suffering under him to make sure we chopped the head off the next king who got too big for his boots. So stop trying to compare the modern democratic UK with other less happy lands and times in order to make dubious points.
OK Pamela, I do believe that under Pol Pot workers had to seek permission from their employers before they could change jobs. Is that better?
My comment wasn’t actually aimed at UKIP, rather it was about Thatcher and her industrial relations. If it involved UKIP at all David involved UKIP by proposing even more restrictions on workers.
I know it wasn’t aimed at UKIP: that’s not the point. There is still no viable comparison to be made between Thatcher or any other modern British party or PM, and the likes of Adolf and Co. In this country we have not tolerated dictators of that kind for hundreds of years and in my opinion, never will. We’d rather have a civil war than allow it to happen. It’s what makes me feel grateful to be British; it’s the vital difference between this country and others I’d rather not live in. It’s OUR history that matters, not that of other nations.
If we ignore the history of other countries how do we avoid making the same mistakes? If our leaders go in the same direction as leaders of other countries should we ignore that? If our leaders do things comparable with other fascist leaders should we just ignore them because you don’t like comparisons being made?
How do you define a dictator?
There have been benign dictators and there have been malign dictators.
John, You are clearly losing this argument and Pamela is right. Anyone evoking the ‘H’ comparison is woefully short of a good argument.
Best to stop digging.
As I said to Pamela, substitute any other dictator if you don’t like the Hitler comparison.
Pamela’s objection seemed to be purely to my using Hitler, she didn’t deny that he restricted workers rights, as Thatcher did and you want to.
Thatcher wasn’t a dictator, so what’s the point of the comparison? Think a dictator would be brought down because the country and the rest of the Cabinet didn’t like the poll tax? ‘Benign dictator’ is an oxymoron.
Benign dictator isn’t an oxymoron, there have been a good few of them.
Are you trying to tell me that no dictator has ever been overthrown by their generals?