Wooly Thinking

I enjoy reading The Independent because it's normally thoughtful and not as partisan as some of the other mainstream newspapers, but this piece by Matt Dathan on strike ballots is guilty of some very wooly thinking. 

The first point to make is that an election (parliamentary or otherwise) and a strike ballot are two completely different animals.

In the UK an election is fought under an adversarial, competitive system - one which puts various checks and balances in place to prevent abuse by whoever wins power, for example by the simple act of having an effective, organised opposition.  

In a trade union ballot, over a strike or a union's Political Fund for example, this kind of  safeguard simply does not exist and nor are trade unions regulated in the same way as other professions and walks of life.

So there is a legitimate concern that, in some ways, trade unions operate as a law unto themselves. 

Another issue is the level or density of trade union membership in a particular workplace or industry and while counting the votes of only union members in a union ballot, is perfectly valid, exercising a strike mandate really ought to be viewed as part of a bigger picture.

In other words, does the union (or unions) involved speak for the whole of the workforce and my own investigations in this area suggest that even in its former Labour heart (in North and South Lanarkshire, for example) the level of union membership is surprisingly low - at less than 50% in some cases.    

Trade Union Bill: Sajid Javid would have failed to be elected under his own strike law reforms

Under Sajid Javid's plans, workers in key public sectors will be banned from striking unless they are backed by more than 40 per cent of balloted members

By MATT DATHAN - The Independent

The government minister in charge of drawing up strict new laws on strike action would not have been elected if the same rules applied to him.

Sajid Javid, the business secretary, has unveiled plans to ban strikes by key public sector workers unless they are supported by at least 40 per cent of all of those eligible to vote.

But taking a look at the results of his own Bromsgrove constituency in May's general election reveals that he himself was supported by just 38.3 per cent of the 74,000 people eligible to vote in his seat.

So Mr Javid, like the vast majority of the Tory MPs who are backing the crackdown on trade union industrial action, would have failed to be elected if the rules he is applying to key public sector workers applied to him.

The strict new laws, which could come into force as early as next year if approved by MPs in the autumn, will cover key public sector workers such as nurses, teachers, fire fighters, train drivers and Border Staff.

The proposed new law on ballot support would have kept some of London Underground open in the most recent strikeMeanwhile in other sectors that are not deemed as vital public services, strike action will be curtailed with a new 50 per cent turnout threshold for industrial action to be legal. 

There are even some MPs who would fail to reach this criteria if it was applied to parliamentary elections, including Tristram Hunt, the shadow education secretary, whose Stoke-on-Trent Central seat saw a turnout of just 49.9 per cent.

If the proposed changes had been in place before last week's London Underground strike, which caused widespread chaos across the capital, two of the four unions on strike would not have reached the threshold and would have been banned from going ahead with industrial action. Transport for London said it could have put on a limited service if this had been the case.

Similar moves to clamp down on strike action was proposed by the Tories in the last government but the Liberal Democrats blocked the plans.