Exclusive: International unions send TUC solidarity letters over Tory anti-strike bill

The TUC has received a series of letters of solidarity from unions around the world criticising the UK government for attempting to restrict the right to strike ahead of the third reading of the minimum service levels bill.

The legislation – which would see minimum service levels enforced during strikes in certain areas of the public sector – returns to the Commons on Monday, having passed its second reading earlier this month by 309 votes to 249.

TUC general secretary Paul Nowak today accused ministers of trying to keep MPs “in the dark” about the “draconian nature” of the legislation. The federation of unions has submitted a freedom of information request to uncover why the government published the bill without a required impact assessment.

The regulatory policy committee (RPC) – which scrutinises new legislation – issued a statement following the bill’s first reading, noting that the government is “expected” to submit impact assessments to the RPC before a bill is laid before parliament but that an assessment for the bill in question “has not yet been submitted”.

Nowak declared: “The government must not be allowed to duck scrutiny. This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.”

“It is shameful that parliamentarians are being forced to vote blindly on such far-reaching new laws. We urge MPs from all parties to vote against this nasty bill,” the union leader added

The TUC has received a series of letters of solidarity from unions around the world in response to the bill, copies of which have been seen by LabourList. Letters have been sent from unions in Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Guatemala, Norway, Peru, Romania and Spain.

The French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) wrote in its letter that public sector workers “deserve better” and “deserve to be listened to”, adding: “The British government cannot dodge its responsibility to negotiate by simply restricting their right to strike and take collective actions.”

The union told the TUC: “Your struggle is the struggle of CFDT and of all our fellow European trade unions. CFDT stands in solidarity with you against this anti-union reform and joins your call on British policymakers to withdraw this bill.”

The Autonomous General Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA) wrote that it is also going through a “very difficult period” in Algeria, where it said it is facing a “frontal attack on the right to strike”. The union expressed its solidarity with workers and trade unions engaged in struggle.

Peru’s Central Union of Workers (CUT) warned in its letter that the passing of the minimum service levels legislation will have “dire repercussions throughout the world and in Peru in particular”.

International unions – including Spain’s Unión Sindical Obrera (USO) and the All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions (OPZZ) – have also sent letters to British ambassadors criticising the legislation.

In its letter to the British ambassador to Spain, the USO expressed “deep concerns” about the bill, declaring: “Contrary to UK government claims, these measures would push the UK even further outside of international democratic norms.”

The Spanish union’s letter continued: “We urge you to convey to UK ministers the solidarity of working people in Spain with public servants and all workers in the UK as they seek [to] defend their standard of living and defeat these unfair and counterproductive measures.”

Grant Shapps has argued that the legislation brings the UK “into line… with many other modern European nations, such as Spain, Italy, France and Ireland”, telling MPs that other countries “use minimum service levels in a common-sense way to reduce the impact of strikes”.

The Business Secretary has also claimed that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) supports the use of minimum service levels to balance the right to strike with the needs of the wider public.

Asked whether the ILO supports the use of such legislation, ILO director general Gilbert Houngbo said the organisation did not want to interfere in national discussions, but added that “social dialogue” between employers and employees was particularly important in the current economic climate.

Houngbo said he was “very worried about workers having to accept situations” because they were faced with the threat of losing their jobs. He told the BBC that the ILO “has been in discussions” with UK unions about filing a complaint with the organisation to establish whether the bill would break international laws.

The legislation proposes to give the Business Secretary the power to set minimum service levels during strikes in certain parts of the public sector, with employers instructing unions via ‘work notices’ how many workers will be required on strikes days to meet that level.

The bill would apply 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 and could be sued if they fail to do so.

Striking workers would lose their protection from unfair dismissal if the work notice states that they should be working, provided that their employer has given them notice ahead of the strike day.

The TUC announced earlier this month that a national ‘protect the right to strike’ day will take place on Wednesday. The union body said events will be held across the country in protest against the anti-strike bill.