The Anti-Strike Bill

by New Worker correspondent

Monday evening saw the House of Commons predictably pass the misnamed Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, whose name ought to have been prefixed with the word “Anti”.
    The bill applies to six sectors: health, education, fire rescue, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning. Under the law, unions would be required to take “reasonable steps” to ensure members comply with the work notice to maintain “essential” services and could be sued if they fail to do so. It will also allow bosses to sack striking workers whom they claim are essential.
    In the debate Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said the Bill should be called the “Conservative sacking nurses Bill” and said Labour would repeal it if the party was elected to power She denounced it as an “attack on our basic British freedoms”. That promise should be taken with ladleful of salt as Labour pledges to overturn Tory anti-union laws do not last very long.
    The final vote was 315-246. A number of opposition amendments, some designed to exclude Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and water down the requirements on the levels of service unions were expected to maintain were thrown out.
    Anyone hoping that the noble lords and ladies on the red benches will introduce positive changes are probably the sort of people who believe in fairies and magic crystals. The protests on Wednesday described on the front page will be a good start.
    The measure has been widely denounced even by the most traditionally right-wing unions. Paddy Lillis, of shopworkers union said on the eve of the debate: “This anti-union legislation means that when workers democratically vote to strike, they could be forced to work and sacked if they don’t. That is undemocratic, unworkable and almost certainly illegal. We are also staggered that the Tories have chosen to unjustifiably fast-track the legislation through the House of Commons, so that it won’t receive the necessary scrutiny and MPs won’t hear important evidence from those affected”.
    Even a Tory supporter of the measure, Jacob Rees-Mogg partly agreed with the latter, warning it was so badly written that it will be subject to legal challenges unless it is drastically amended by the House of Lords. The former Business Secretary also said that it gave sweeping powers to his successor, in particular he took aim at Clause Three which he denounced for allowing the Business Secretary the power to define minimum service levels at a later date.
    The TUC while denouncing the “draconian nature” of the legislation has done little apart from submit a freedom of information request to discover why the Government published the Bill without an impact assessment. No doubt that will put the fear of God into the Government.
    The Tories claimed minimum service agreements are already in place citing agreement with Royal College of Nursing when it took strike action recently, but the Bill obviously goes much further and is an attack on the right to take industrial action.
    The debate also signalled that the Tories will continue to take a hard line in the present round of public sector strikes when the minister claimed that “An inflation-matching pay increase of 11 per cent for all public sector workers would cost £28 billion, which would put just under £1,000 on to the bills of every household in all our constituencies”.
    Another dangerous move by the Government against trade unions, which has been overlooked in recent weeks is the new regulations which will allow agency workers to be hired in disputes to fill in for striking workers.
    This will be the subject of legal action in the High Court next month. The measures have even been criticised by employment agencies, who do not want to be involved in industrial disputes. Their trade body, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), which represents suppliers of agency workers, described the proposals as “unworkable”. Even the House of Lords Committee which examined the measure said: “the lack of robust evidence and the expected limited net benefit raise questions as to the practical effectiveness and benefit” of the new laws.
    Last December retiring TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady pointed out that: “The right to strike is a fundamental British liberty. But the government seems hellbent on attacking it at every opportunity. She added that “these attacks on the right to strike are likely illegal. Ministers failed to consult with unions, as the law requires. And restricting the freedom to strike is a breach of international law”.
    However it is rare for the TUC to actually mobilise workers against such laws. They seem more upset about the fact that they do not get invited round for herbal tea and hummus wraps with the minister to discuss the legal technicalities than stirring up mass action.