The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill gets its third reading in the House of Lords today.
The Trade Union Congress estimates about 5.5 million public sector workers will lose the right to strike as a result of this bill. They include nurses, teachers and a whole range of other public servants who will, under the terms of the bill, be capable of being ordered to work or to face the sack.
I suspect this law will pass. After all, Labour likes draconian laws these days. Even if it opposes it will make sure it has not got enough members in the House to defeat the government. That's easy to do.
And then around 20% of all workers in the UK will have lost the right to strike. Their ability to force their employer to take their pay claims seriously will have gone.
What is the inevitable outcome of this? It will be that yet more people will want to stop working in our essential public services. After all, why work for an employer who wants to institutionally abuse you when you might go somewhere else? It will become increasingly hard to persuade anyone to work in the public sector when it is organised on the basis of contempt for those who do so.
The knock on effects are obvious. Our public sector services will get worse. And then the Tories - and no doubt Labour too - will say that they need to privatised, or simply not be delivered. That is their plan, after all. Ever smaller government is their aim. And the result is the overwhelming sense that nothing in this country works any more.
That sense is well justified. After thirteen years of austerity and a narrative from government that there is no alternative to the failure that this has delivered of course people see the consequences. And they feel the contempt from politicians who have deliberately created this situation.
But it need not be like this.
There is no financial constraint on government that requires austerity. In fact there is the exact opposite. It would be entirely possible for the government to use its power to spend not to provide banks with capital or to boost house prices, as it has done, but to instead to boost people's well being.
Government deficits are, after all, private wealth. There is no action by government that does not have a reaction and the creation of private wealth is the inevitable reaction to a government deficit. It has to be. The deficit means there is more money in the economy. That means there could be more income for some - like essential public workers - and more spending power to benefit others through the power of the multiplier.
What this Bill wants to do is to reduce that private wealth creation for the benefit of those who meet some of our most essential needs by restricting the right of many state employees to demand fair pay. It wants that power reserved solely to benefit financial institutions. That is a choice the government - and I suspect our official opposition - are making.
We don't need to run the country like this. We could pay those who work appropriately. We could encourage good work. We could foster good industrial relations. We could build trust. We could make things work, in other words.
They don't work because the government has chosen not to do these things and the Opposition won't hold them to account for their failings because they plan to follow the same path.
That's why we're in a mess.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
When pay review bodies were first dreamt up by a Royal Commission, one of the essential elements was that public service pay must not be used ás a tool to control inflation. When UK government abandoned the idea that went out of the window, the current system requires the PRB to consider government spending plans. The result is demoralisation, poor service, and staff shortages. Removing the right to strike will simply speed up the exodus of expensively trained professionals to other domains.
An excellent reason for three independence of the of the four UK nations.
If you can’t strike, then resign on mass.
Anti-Union legislation has generally been popular. The “folk memory” of the “three day week”, “Union Barons” and “Red Robbo” is alive and well in certain newspapers…. even if the reality was different.
However, it is nearly 50 years since then and when presented with the current industrial action (nurses on strike etc.) people see how silly this legislation is. I think even among conservatives this looks (at best) like a waste of time.
“and the Opposition won’t hold them to account for their failings”
You have made a category error. There is no opposition, Liebore does not oppose, it has no interest in opposing – why would you oppose legislation that you support?
Liebore is vile-tory, vile-tory is Liebore. War is peace, love is hate. Liebore loves Big Starmer.
The local election results suggest that Liebore will +/-win in the next national elections. Clientelism will rule. The link below offers a local view of how this could pan out on a national scale: https://skwawkbox.org/2023/05/08/exclusive-notorious-wirral-deputy-leader-offering-tories-positions-for-support-with-leader-bid/
Liebore & Starmer – as corrupt as the vile-tories.
It seems to me that we have very few (if any ) genuine Labour MPs now. What we have is a mass of generic neoliberal MPs with a very similar outlook across all three main parties with a few more extreme exceptions mainly in the Tory party.
I think the need for a new party that does not hold to these values has never been more pressing but with our system and media I just can’t see any change anytime soon
I despair for my children’s futures
There are one or two embryonic parties that could pass muster. I’m not convinced by the Greens, far far too middle class, the Lying Dems are +/- the same as ever. Gina Millar’s mob (Truth & Justice) might be one possibility.
One thing for sure, being nice, pleasant & reasonable is not going to cut through when faced with the establishment, its thug-plods & its meeja zombies. This requires a gloves off & no-prisoners taken approach. On the positive side – intelligent use of Internet-based meeja – plus some other things – could lead to change. Would you be interested in being part of this? (question also addressed to all other readers of this blog).
The thing I don’t get about this – the whole point of organised strike action is that the labour force assumes that you “can’t fire everyone”, if they all air a grievance at the same time. So whether or not a strike is considered “legal” isn’t going to change the fact that if a workforce decides to go on strike, there’s nothing to prevent it. “be capable of being ordered to work or to face the sack.” – It’s the same maths, either you let them strike or you fire everyone. There’s barely enough public service workers as-is, so regardless of what westminster might say, I don’t see local authorities or NHS trusts making use of any of these powers to fire people if they keep going on strike. Unless there is some perspective I’m missing, I don’t really see how this bill will ensure minimum service levels (if such things are even capable of being met outside of strikes).
I agree to an extent but the probable tactic would be to fire the ‘ring leaders’ with the Toxic Tabloids cheering them on.
To eliminate some to ‘encourage the others’.
Reagan in 1981 in his first summer as President, fired 11, 359 Federally employed Air traffic controllers who refused to stop their strike and return to work.
This was followed by the Volcker shock i.e.high interest rates and subsequent unemployment.
Trade union membership fell and neo-liberalism reigned in the US as it had started to do in the UK.
The same mindset is still in operation.
Question.
A privatised public service still needs staff so how will Outsourcing Companies get them if nobody wants to do the job in the existing publicly run services unless they offer better pay and conditions than before?
Again this is one of those situations that plays into the hands of the government and could make Labour look as though it is in favour of public sector strikes if it does not support it.
What is fueling this of course is inequality – those without jobs or on zero hours contracts will of course by now be chomping at the bit for others who have better working conditions and rights to have as little as they do.
It’s equality in REVERSE. Levelling DOWN.
All by the way ably set out for us by Timothy Snyder in his book ‘The Road to Unfreedom’.
PSR:
“Again this is one of those situations that plays into the hands of the government and could make Labour look as though it is in favour of public sector strikes if it does not support it.”
I am sorry, the Labour party I joined (although not the one I left) WAS in favour of public sector strikes if a decent deal xould not be achieved by negotiation. Unless of course the proposed strike was during one of those brief periods when there was a Labour government.
Parable of the Sower by Octavia E Butler is prescient on this subject, we’re possibly heading towards a very dystopian future, where new tribes and networks of solidarity will have to built to provide what states are refusing to do. This will be against increasing state (and corporate) interference since they will never give up on policing people (there will, though, come a point where state legitimacy will collapse, the right to police comes at a price which is decreasingly being paid). The absolute cruelty of this period in history is breathtaking, as is, from the flag-waving imbecility of the weekend, so many people’s willingness to cheer on their own subjugation. I fear also that the convergence of so many human-created existential threats will become insurmountable very soon, if it’s not already too late, with few if any routes to the needed changes achievable via existing political systems. I imagine societal breakdown, which is already occurring, will only worsen. This century looks set to be an ugly one. What is hopeful though, is, that if the state becomes untenable, more people will be able to set-up their own systems free from govt interference, and, as history shows, these will likely be co-operative and egalitarian. Whatever happens, I don’t think there’s going to be a gentle landing.
David Willetts
Can I ask what version of history you subscribe to please? The state in its history has also promoted egalitarianism and co-operation – read Michael Hudson and David Graeber will you before making statements like that.
And let us get one more thing clear whilst we are at it: any system of society – no matter how benign – can be hacked and twisted by vested interests?
What you are failing to note is that this has occurred and the way it has occurred and that we have still not dealt with it, because to do deal with it would compromise the very nature and power of capitalism today.
I’ll give you a clue maybe? It’s to do with the internet.
I’ve read most of what David Graeber wrote, he was an anarchist and not a fan of states by any means, not read Michael Hudson. Whatever else states may do, they also do untold harm, which isn’t cancelled out by doing good. Also, my intention is to be critical. I stand by my view, we are hurtling towards a terrible future, and I see little in the way of a meaningful govt response to that. Just to take the UK, polls show a disconnect between what people want (e.g. public ownership) and what govt offers (privatisation), and states willingly make this so. The world over states enable vast inequalities and violence against those deemed other. These things should never be ignored or set against “but on the other hand…” I agree that, hypothetically, states could be benign, even benevolent, however, actually existing states fall far short, and for many they are a living hell with similarly no escape. I also agree about hijacking, but how then to eject the hijackers?
You seem to be confusing the state and neoliberal politician
This is a war against workers