Strike Rules
The BBC reports that the Conservative Party has plans to introduce a new threshold for union strike ballots which would require a 50% turnout in order for any industrial action enjoy the protection of the law.
Now the problem seems to revolve around only a small handful of disputes with the London Underground being in the eye of the storm, which is perhaps not surprising given how many people live in that part of the world and use the Tube network for work, rest and play.
Another option would be to bring in a system of pendulum arbitration, as exists in other countries, Australia for example, although German trade unions seems to get by quite happily while insisting on a higher turnout threshold before strikes go ahead.
And that's the real point - the fact that a union achieves a Yes vote in a strike ballot does not mean that a strike should go ahead, but if that is happening on a regular routine basis then something clearly needs to change.
Conservatives would reform union strike rules, Cameron confirms
A future Conservative government would introduce a threshold on union ballots for strike action, Prime Minister David Cameron has said.
The PM pledged to take action on the matter if he won a majority in the 2015 general election.
In an interview with BBC London 94.9 Mr Cameron said he could not deliver the changes in coalition because the Liberal Democrats were "not keen".
London Mayor Boris Johnson said in April the PM was planning the reforms.
'Right to strike'
Mr Cameron said: "I want a Conservative government to pass new legislation so that strikes in central public services can't go ahead unless there is a proper threshold crossed in terms of the number of people taking part in the ballot.
"Of course there is a right to strike in this country, but in essential services, isn't it worth saying there ought to be a threshold before a strike is called, which causes so much damage?
"I am keen on it and a new Conservative government would deal with that."
During the recent strike action affecting London Underground services, Mr Johnson said he had been given personal assurances by the prime minister that he would "deliver a deal on day one of a new administration".
Mr Johnson has called for strikes to be unlawful unless 50% of staff in a workplace take part in a ballot.
Under the current law, a strike can take place if it is backed by a simple majority of those balloted.
In the case of the recent 48-hour strike Tube strike, and earlier strikes in February, 77% of RMT members who voted in the ballot last year backed action.
But the number of eligible RMT union members who took part was lower, at 40%, while London Underground said only 31% of the total workforce had actually voted in favour of the action.
At the moment, only members of the armed services, the police, and prison officers - regarded as essential public services - are prohibited by law from withdrawing their labour.
German Success (11 June 2013)
I've been thinking of late about the similarities and differences between trade unions in the UK - and other parts of Europe.
So in a mad rush of enthusiasm I dashed off an email to IG Metall - one of the biggest trade unions in Germany which has 3.7 million members - and a very user friendly web site.
I asked the IG Metall press office the following 3 questions and to my great delight I received an answer by email - within an astonishing 24 hours.
1 The position of women members in IG Metall
Question There seems to be a provision in your rules that women must be represented on Works Councils in direct proportion to the number of women in the workforce. Is that correct and do you have any figures to show how women are represented in this way?
Answer You are right. This rule is written in our national shop constitution act since 2001 and this will keep the minority of the workforce (in our branch normally women) in the works councils. 20 percent of our workforce (only our branch) are women. The result by the last elections in 2010: 22,8 percent of the members in works councils are women.
2 The political affiliation, if any, of IG Metall
Question Most but not all trade unions in the UK have a political affiliation, but all those that do have a relationship with only one party, the Labour Party. What is the position with IG Metall and other trade unions in Germany?
Answer The German Unions are formally independent. Paragraph 2 of the IG Metall Charter calls for Independency against parties, companies and institutions. Historically, there has been a strong partnership between the unions and the Social Democratic Party SPD.
3 Strike ballots
Question There appears to be a provision in your rules that a stike ballot is only valid if 75% members entitled to vote take part in the ballot. Is that correct and do other trade unions operate similar rules?
Answer Yes, this is correct.
So, there you have some really striking information to wrestle with and consider at your leisure.
In Germany women are represented in proportion to their numbers within the workforce - trade unions are politically independent from all parties - and strikes are sanctioned only if a big majority of union members (75%) have taken part in the pre-strike ballot.
Interesting to say the least - and worthy of inclusion in any serious debate about what makes a successful economy and fair society.
The only other point I would add is that I can't imagine any trade union in the UK being quite so efficient or helpful as IG Metall.
Tube Strike (1 May 2014)
I found myself agreeing with this editorial piece in The Times about the latest London tube strike.
Not all strikes are brave and noble, of course, as the Unite trade union demonstrated only recently with its kamikaze tactics in the great Grangemouth (Ineos) debacle in 2013 - a dispute which was really about party politics, if you ask me, rather than the interests of rank and file Unite members.
And so what's the London tube business all about? - now I've been down in London several times in the past few years yet not once have I bought my travel ticket (Oyster card) at a station ticket office.
Like most people I would regard staff out on the platforms and walking around the station to be a much better use of resources that someone being stuck behind a desk in a little ticket office all day long.
Strangely enough, if Bob Crow had still been leading the RMT I think the dispute would be over by now - I suspect things are dragging on because those jostling to succeed Bob Crow as the union's general secretary are trying to use the strike to their advantage.
Abuse of Power
The mayor of London has been outmanoeuvred by militants over the tube strike
Britain’s economy has at last recovered to something like its trend rate of growth. Meanwhile, the transport system of its capital city appears to have reverted to the 1970s. Millions of London commuters were delayed for hours yesterday owing to a strike on the Tube network by the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union.
The strike is scheduled to continue today, with a further three-day stoppage next week. The RMT opposes the planned modernisation of the Tube, and specifically the proposal by Transport for London (TfL) to close all station ticket offices. The strike is entirely without merit. It is a grossly irresponsible abuse of the monopoly power of a small group of workers. Boris Johnson, the London mayor, campaigned for office in opposition to this type of industrial militancy. His condemnation of the strike is aptly robust. Yet he has done too little to curb the power of the unions to inflict inconvenience and misery on commuters.
The Tube is a marvel of Victorian industrial engineering and civic enterprise. It is absurd, however, that the way stations operate should be a relic of the 19th century. Few people (less than 3 per cent of London Underground customers) go to the window of a ticket office to buy their ticket. It makes no economic sense, nor is there a plausible case on grounds of safety, to maintain ticket offices at all. TfL should not negotiate on this point; it should implement its plans and expect to have unreserved political support.
Technology has changed payment methods. Oyster cards, ticket machines and online payments are more convenient for passengers than standing in a queue to buy a ticket across the counter. When contactless bank card payments are introduced on the Tube this year, there will be still less cause for anyone to visit a ticket office.
TfL’s plan for modernising the network does not mean dispensing with staff. It means giving them a more direct role in helping passengers. Instead of sitting behind a window, they will be in the ticket hall, on platforms and in the body of the station, ready to give advice on tickets, ticket machines and travel routes. New technology is making it easier for passengers to find people to help them, when they need it. Many stations already work without ticket offices.
That arrangement is more efficient. It will save around £50 million a year, which could be invested in new trains. The generous and constructive way in which TfL has approached modernisation ensures that while 950 fewer people will be needed in the absence of ticket offices, there will be no compulsory redundancies.
Different ways of working — and specifically the extension of hours across the night — will create new job opportunities. That is how modernisation proceeds in any industry. Customer demand shifts; new technology requires new skills; enlightened companies ensure that staff are trained in them. Other trade unions are working with TfL to implement those plans. It is solely the RMT that is disrupting the commerce, tourism and family life of London and its Tube passengers.
That is where the problem lies. Mr Johnson has been a vocal advocate of new driverless trains, in line with technological development, by the end of the decade. He could have shown greater urgency in this. He has instead been outmanoeuvred by a small and militant sectional interest. That is no way to run a great commercial city.
Pendulum Arbitration (6 February 2014)
Here's a post form the blog site archive which is particularly topical in light of the latest London Underground strike which is now into its second day.
I wonder which side would win the argument if this dispute were to be referred to pendulum arbitration?
From what I've read 80% or so of Londoners support the proposals to get staff out from behind their glass panelled 'ticket offices' and play a more pro-active role with passengers and potential customers.
Now if that's true, the RMT's case looks rather weak especially as there are no compulsory redundancies and may help to explain why 70% or so of the union's membership failed to vote in their recent strike ballot.
Pendulum Arbitration (5 November 2013)
In the wake of the Grangemouth dispute which ended so disastrously for Unite and the credibility of the trade unions more generally - lots of people have been coming up with suggestions for improving industrial relations such as having workers on the boards of big companies - worker/directors if you like.
Now I've long been in favour of having workers represented on the board which is a feature of industrial relations in other countries, Germany for example, but like lots of good ideas it's not a miracle cure - because disputes like the one that erupted in Grangemouth are unlikely to be resolved at a board meeting.
A much more practical thing to consider would be the widespread use of 'pendulum arbitration' which involves an independent referee (arbitrator) making a decision that comes down in favour of one side or the other - i.e. in favour of either the employer or the trade union.
Employers and trade are often unwilling to use arbitration, especially if they think the stakes are too high, but after the near closure of the giant Grangemouth plant - maybe it is an idea whose time has finally come.
For the life of me, I cannot see any arbitrator siding with Unite over their claims of unfair treatment towards the local union convener, Stephen Deans - because all the employer was doing was investigating allegations that Deans was spending a good deal of his time on Labour Party business - which was clearly wrong.
Yet instead of Unite and Deans putting their hands up - the union called a strike and were willing too play fast and loose with thousands of jobs.
Now I've long been in favour of having workers represented on the board which is a feature of industrial relations in other countries, Germany for example, but like lots of good ideas it's not a miracle cure - because disputes like the one that erupted in Grangemouth are unlikely to be resolved at a board meeting.
A much more practical thing to consider would be the widespread use of 'pendulum arbitration' which involves an independent referee (arbitrator) making a decision that comes down in favour of one side or the other - i.e. in favour of either the employer or the trade union.
Employers and trade are often unwilling to use arbitration, especially if they think the stakes are too high, but after the near closure of the giant Grangemouth plant - maybe it is an idea whose time has finally come.
For the life of me, I cannot see any arbitrator siding with Unite over their claims of unfair treatment towards the local union convener, Stephen Deans - because all the employer was doing was investigating allegations that Deans was spending a good deal of his time on Labour Party business - which was clearly wrong.
Yet instead of Unite and Deans putting their hands up - the union called a strike and were willing too play fast and loose with thousands of jobs.
Fair Dinkum, Cobbers (31 October 2011)
And that seems to be an apt phrase top use in connection with the Qantas dispute - which seems to have ended - vitually overnight.
Qantas had grounded all of its flights in an increasingly biiter dispute with its trade unions - whom the company accused of making unreasonable demands.
But instead of dragging things out for months on end - the issues involved were put to an independent arbitration panel - which seems to have ruled in the company's favour and ordered everyone back to work.
Now I don't know much about the independent tribunal involved - but it does seem to have done the trick - by coming down largely in favour of one side or the other - instead of splitting hairs.
If that's what has happened it's called pendulum arbitration - which means just that - choosing between different and sometimes highly polarised arguments.
The advantage being that it encourages both sides in an industrial dispute to behave reasonably - not to exaggerate things.
Otherwise if the dispute is referred to arbitration - then the party that has been rowing its boat out too far is likely to lose.
In the UK we have ACAS - the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service - but this quango does not enjoy the best of reputations and lacks real teeth.
Everyone involved in a industrial dispute in the UK has to agree to ACAS becoming involved - and it has no history of moving quickly to bring in decisive judgments - as the long-running BA dispute being the perfect example.
So maybe our Aussie friends have come up with a good idea - Fair Work Australia is the name of the independent tribunal - which has brought the Qantas dispute to a swift end.
Fair dinkum, cobblers.
Hairy Arsed Liar? (9 February 2014)
I've always subscribed to the view that in order to be genuinely funny a cartoon or caricature has to contain a truthful enough portrayal of its 'victim' - otherwise it is really just abuse.
Now the statement made by Boris Johnson which is being used in some quarters to justify the latest London Tube strike was made back in 2008 - not in the latest Mayoral election in 2012 when Boris was re-elected for a second term by defeating the Labour candidate, Ken Livingstone.
So, while Steve Bell likes to portray Bojo as some kind of 'hairy arsed' liar in this recent Guardian cartoon, I think he far too wide of the mark to make a telling point.
Since his original remarks the London Mayor says he has changed his mind on the question of tickets offices because the circumstances have changed including the widespread use of new technology which means that most people buy their underground tickets in local shops and other outlets - and not in ticket offices.
And I have to say that's my experience as well because the last time I was in London I topped-up my old 'Oyster' travel card in a local shop and the person who served me, a young Muslim woman as I recall, couldn't have been more helpful.
World's Your Oyster (16 November 2013)
The Oyster card lets you travel on the underground, buses and trains - across the length and breadth of London - providing a service to over 11 million people.
The service operates across 32 London boroughs and over a number of different transport companies - and the travelling public just buy and card and then top it up from time to time - as the need arises.
Local shops issue the cards and provide the top-up service - just like a mobile phone - so it's very handy and user friendly.
Travel is much cheaper than simply buying a single or daily ticket - because the transport operators get their money in advance - and it cuts out a lot of unecessary bureaucracy and red tape.
So at a time when the Scottish Government is consulting about the future of public transport north of the border - they could learn a lesson or two from Transport for London.
Wouldn't it be marvellous to have one card for travelling around Scotland - and in and out of our major towns and cities?
Can't be that hard to organise - surely.
