The Tories’ clampdown on trade unions – what it means for workers’ rights

Today the Government are unveiling their plans to launch the biggest clampdown on trade unions in 30 years.

These proposals, announced by Business Secretary Sajid Javid, will significantly limit the power of trade unions in a number of ways.

A short explanation of these plans is that the Tories, who last week claimed they were supporting working people, are a week later attacking workers’ democratic right to strike and organise.

But if you want more detailed analysis, here’s a rundown of the plans and what they could mean for trade unions (we’ll bring you more on this once the bill is published):

– Strikes will only be considered lawful if 50% of those eligible to strike vote in the ballot. These measures would mean most strikes would be unlawful. They are made all the more worse by the Government’s refusal to let the unions ballot members electronically.

For “essential public sector workers” the picture is even bleaker. As well as requiring a 50% turnout, 40% would have to vote in favour of strike action for it to go ahead lawfully. This will affect anyone working in health, education, and fire and transport services. The Government say is democratic – but they won the election with the support of 24% of people who were eligible to vote.

–Unions must ask all of their members whether they want to pay the political levy. They must put this question to members every five years. These plans could eat away at Labour party funding but also the money that goes to unions’ wide array of political campaigning; undermining unions’ power to effectively organise.

–Unlawful or intimidatory picketing would be termed a criminal not civil offence. It could be a criminal offence for more than six people to be on a picket line. To monitor this, pickets will be overseen by an official who will be on call for the police at all times. The word ‘scab’ would also be outlawed.

-Strike mandates must be renewed every four months. This would be a costly process and would force unions to give employers two weeks notice prior to a strike. Employers will also be able to hire agency staff who will break the strike. This could put agency staff in a difficult position, while eroding unions’ effectiveness by tipping the balance on power in favour of employers.

–The government will be given powers to put a limit on how much time public sector workers can spend on trade union duties. . Many public sector staff already work extremely long hours, without a decent amount of time set aside for elected officials to spend on trade union responsibilities it could be difficult for people to effectively organise in the workplace.

–The government will also be given powers to fine trade unions up to £20,000 for breaching rules. The officer in charge of investigating whether unions are complying to the government’s stringent rules would be paid for by unions and employers.

Labour have attacked these plans. Chuka Umunna, shadow business secretary, has said this is an attempt to “stifle reasonable democratic scrutiny, protest and challenge.” and that it’s the Government’s “latest attempt to silence critics of this Government and its policies.”

Similarly all of Labour’s leadership candidates have voice their opposition to these measures. Yvette Cooper has called it an ‘ideologically driven attack’, which ‘puts narrow Tory party interests head of what is right for the country’. She has argued ‘ Labour must do all it can to stop these divisive and damaging measures from coming into force.’

Liz Kendall has also come out strongly against the bill, and pledged to repeal the laws if she were Prime Minister:

“Tory attacks on right to strike and trade unions are clearly wrong. I’ll oppose them and as Prime Minister I’d reverse them.” – LK

— Liz Kendall (@LizforLeader) July 15, 2015

 In an article for LabourList, Jeremy Corbyn made it clear that he opposed these laws, calling for the link between Labour and trade unions to be defended.

Andy Burnham has said that this is a “campaign of demonisation against the unions”. He too has said he opposes what this “unjustified attack on the legitimate role of trade unions to protect people in a fragmented and casualised workplace.”