New bill heralds restrictions on ballots, and ban on the use of agency workers
Despite the media hype, the number of days lost to strikes is currently running at historically low levels, with just 151 in 2014, compared to 1,206 in 1984.
Which might explain why unions are up in arms about the government’s Trade Union Bill, which promises to “balance the right to strike with the right of millions of people to go about their daily lives without undue disruption.”
As well as introducing a 50 per cent threshold for ballot turnout – 40 per cent for those in ‘essential public services’ – the Bill proposes tighter controls on how public money is used to subsidise trade union ‘facility time’, and an end to the ban on using agency workers to replace strikers.
While some industry bodies have welcomed the reforms, “there is a danger that making it very difficult to have strikes where people feel very strongly about issues will force people beyond the picket line and even outside the law,” says Nick Bacon, professor of HRM at Cass Business School.
Mike Emmott, employee relations adviser at the CIPD, agrees. Instead of reducing industrial action, tighter scrutiny could turn neutral employee opinion in favour of strikes, and could result in more “unofficial” actions. “This can be much harder for employers and trade unions, or indeed Acas, to resolve,” he says.
A better way to minimise industrial action, suggests Emmott, would have been for the government “to work with the leaders of key public services to improve how change and service transformation is managed. Once broken, employee trust can be difficult to repair.”
Unions may fear much of their traditional heartland would be under attack if the Bill is passed by Parliament, but Andy Cook, chief executive of consultancy firm Marshall James, believes the impact would be minimal: “This won’t touch most employers and HR professionals because they don’t work in unionised environments,” he says.
The removal of restrictions on using temporary workers, says Cook, “is more controversial because it really does limit the impact of industrial action.
“The law doesn’t solve industrial disputes – people and relationships do. The problems won’t go away: they will just manifest themselves in different ways.”