|
August
2010
Q
What was the initial reaction to the anti-union laws when
they were first implemented, and why do you think they have
not yet been abolished? What is the background to your campaign?
Did it arise out of any particular struggle?
A:
The raft of anti-union laws that the Thatcher Government brought
in on a public mood of anti-union sentiment came in waves
from 1980 right through to 1993. There were almost annual
attacks in new Acts of Parliament. For example, the closed
shop began to be restricted early on, but was not abolished
until 10 years later. By the way, I don't think we'll be pursuing
an active campaign in 2010 to bring back the closed shop in
its pre 1980 form, because it would be hard to justify in
2010. But much of the rest of the anti union laws should be
removed or radically adapted on the basis of internationally
recognised fundamental human freedoms and for other justifiable
reasons, some of which are addressed below.
Back to the question -
the campaign was formed about 10 years ago as a result of
the need for a focussed campaign against the anti union laws
and it has developed over time.
There was no particular
struggle, but there were many. Having said that the impetus
for the call by the TUC and Labour Party in 2005 for a Trade
Union Freedom Bill followed the outrageous events resulting
in dismissal of the workforce at Gate Gourmet (a former part
of BA). The Labour Party conference called for a TUFB, but
the Blair Government acted against it.
This comes onto the part
of the question as yet unanswered. Blair was not a liar when
he said in 1997 "let me state the position clearly, so
that no one is in any doubt. The essential elements of the
trade union legislation of the 1980's will remain...The changes
that we do propose would leave British law the most restrictive
on trade unions in the western world."
Indeed, things are much
worse now than they were in 1997, not least as a result of
the continued break up of industry, increasing privatisation
of public services and greater use of agency and other "atypical
workers".
Q:
In laymans terms, what does solidarity picketing entail?
Under thelaw, what would be the punishment for a union member
engaging in suchan undertaking, and how likely is he/she to
be prosecuted? Are theremany instances of this taking place?
What other measures are now prohibited that were once perfectly
legal?
A:
As in relation to question 1 a full and correct answer is
very long...let me try to provide a brief explanation. Solidarity
(sympathetic, or secondary) action including picketing is
action where workers from another workplace seek to act as
pickets. The purpose of a picket line - as one judge wryly
pointed out - is to stop people crossing it. That is what
it must do to be effective, whether the pickets are entirely
made up of workers at their place of work or they are supported
by other workers, such as those who may be affected by the
outcome of the dispute.
People on picket "lines"
are very restricted now, often to the point of being ineffectual.
That does not mean that we in the UC would condone violence
in the pursuit of legitimate goals, but peaceful picketing
should be any unassailable right as an adjunct to freedom
of association and the permissibility of collective bargaining.
People have been convicted
in the criminal courts of assault on picket lines, that is
true. And it is true that this is rare these days. But the
laws we have now allowing for injunctions to prevent peaceful
picketing, undermine collective action to an unacceptable
extent.
Q:
Does your campaign have much to do with the leftist groups
insidethe Labour Party, such as the Labour Representation
Committee and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy?
A: The UC will work with
anyone sharing our aims. We had a supportive letter in response
to our campaign from a certain Vince Cable not so long ago,
but the man we see so often on the telly recently looking
down at his shoes surely can't be the same man. I may be doing
him a great injustice. I must ask to meet him to discuss our
current campaign.
Q:
In wider economic terms, what have the anti-union laws meant
for the British working class in general?
This is a most interesting
question and one that deserves proper attention, not just
in terms of the impact on all working people and their families,
everyone in Britain and the impact on the economy.
In 2002, the Managing
Director for Human Development at the World Bank, Zafiris
Tzannatos, produced "Unions
and Collective Bargaining - Economic Effects in a Global Environment".
This was an in depth report that reviewed more than a thousand
studies on the effects of unions and collective bargaining.
It found that co-ordinated collective bargaining tended to
be associated with lower and less persistent unemployment,
lower earnings inequality, and fewer and shorter strikes.
In Brussels, on 13 December
2006, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz announced that the
Bank has now taken a decision that all infrastructure projects
funded by it in future would have to fully respect the core
labour standards of the International Labour Organisation
(ILO). This approach by the World Bank is based on sound economics,
and the fact that there is no evidence to show that stronger
employment protection rights and greater collective bargaining
will have an adverse impact on economies or states. Legitimate
businesses should not fear unions. Instead they should fear
the damage caused by illegitimate and irresponsible non-unionised
businesses.
The Canadian Supreme Court
in 2007 assessed evidence and adjudged that the exercise of
collective rights "reaffirms the values of dignity, personal
autonomy, equality and democracy". The exercise of collective
rights also fights poverty for working people, children and
pensioners.
One specific example -
one of many - concerns the attempt by Unite to provide for
equal pay for bus drivers and other bus workers across London
in 2008/9. Justice and the desire to prevent a race down to
the minimum wage were the main motivations for the union's
campaign. Following privatisation on the buses, there are
still restrictions on those businesses who want to tender
to operate on routes. Fares, frequency of service, the types
of bus, and so on are all regulated...the only variables in
effect are wages and pensions. When a route comes up for tender,
companies bidding on price only compete on the basis that
they can persuade workers it recruits to work for less. Newer
successful bidders are paying drivers several thousand pounds
less than before. Where will it end?
The employers refused
to engage with the union at all in negotiations towards its
goal of equal pay. Industrial action to bring the employers
to the table collapsed after one bus company - Metrobus -
used the grossly unreasonable anti union laws arguing a novel
point to obtain an injunction to prevent action. In relation
to a balloting procedure that takes weeks to complete, the
union had delayed telling the employer of the outcome of the
ballot by a day or so, the company argued. Any delay had no
bearing on the actions of the employer and could only serve
to delay the strike, but still the court gave the injunction
based on a technical breach of the plethora of unnecessary
requirements imposed on unions precisely for purpose of stopping
a strike, when there is no good substantive reason for doing
so.
Other London bus companies
went to the Metrobus lawyers and followed suit. All impetus
was lost. The race to the bottom continues. The incomes of
the bus workers of London will continue to fall alarmingly.
Their families will suffer. Their pensions likewise.
Q:
With the recent budget, many people are thoroughly disgusted
with the Coalition government. Would you have encouraged a
vote for the Labour Party despite its retention of anti-union
legislation, or did you hold out hopes for another party?
It's not really a matter
for the United Campaign to tell people how to vote. When Brown
made a statement against union rights to the press on a 'plane
to Japan, we prepared an article entitled "Brown
flies off in the wrong direction". This was simply
reporting the facts.
We have no illusions though
about the Tories and the current Government. We'll have to
ensure that they act following being told by international
human rights bodies that the UK laws are themselves unlawful
by being in breach of international conventions and treaties.
One union has recently lodged a case before the European Court
of Human Rights to establish (as has already been stated by
the ILO and the Council of Europe's Social Rights Committee
on more than one occasion) that Britain's ban on secondary
action is unlawful.
David Milliband has said
in hustings for the Labour Party leadership that he doesn't
care that Britain law fails to comply with fundamental human
rights and freedoms in this regard. But it's not our place
to criticise unions who decide to support him for leader.
Q:
Given the advent of large scale cuts in welfare, do you see
further attacks on trade unions being on the government's
agenda? If so, how do you plan to respond to this, and do
you believe there could be resurgence in the unions for more
militant policies?
We don't see new legislation
on the immediate horizon. The existing law as applied by the
courts increasingly makes it very difficult to take action.
But the attacks on unions using the law will continue apace
in the context of the massive cuts. And if unions do manage
to take effective action, no doubt there will be baying for
more anti union laws.
We are working on our
next steps, but will continue to make the case. History teaches
that there will come a point when subjugation to the effects
of bad law will not be tolerated. The TUC are certainly not
radical in relation to this debate, but the TUC's Sarah Veale,
was reported in the FT as saying that injunctions preventing
strike action did not save companies any inconvenience, because
companies would pay for poor industrial relations in one way
or another. National statistics showed a rise in sick day
absences that correlated with the fall since the 1990s of
official days lost due to strikes. This suggested employees
were finding another method of expressing their grievances.
She also said unofficial, "wildcat" strikes were
rising, showing that disgruntled employees could still vote
with their feet if injunctions prevented official action.
Q:
Since the recession living standards for certain sectors of
the population have declined remarkably. A recent survey from
a charity organisation even goes as far as to claim that some
families with disabled children are having trouble gaining
access to affordable food and heating. In the final analysis,
what role do you see the trade unions playing in helping to
resolve such issues, and would the repeal of anti-union legislation
aid in such an endeavour?
Again a good question
and one where the answer is really important for the vast
majority of people in the UK. Matters included in the response
are dealt with above. But don't rely on my opinion, look to
the treaties and conventions ratified by the UK and virtually
every country in the world. Consider what the Canadian Supreme
Court judges say and the Grand Chamber of the European Court
of Human Rights in the 2008 case of Demir, for example. Look
at the sort of survey that you mentioned too.
With reasonable collective
rights poverty affecting children and pensioners will reduce.
Dignity within society will be greater. Equality will be promoted.
Democracy will be enhanced.
|
