How would you feel if you told your boss you wanted a pay increase that kept up with inflation this year, and he then stopped paying you, and hired someone else to do your job, until you changed your mind? I suspect you wouldn’t be best pleased to say the least.
Nonetheless, this is pretty much what the most recent Lib Dem guidance on trades unions is suggesting.
MPs, parliamentary candidates and activists are advised, if asked about the Trade Union Freedom bill, to write something along the lines of:
“I do not believe that strikers should be paid for not working, nor that employers should be prevented from employing temporary replacement workers – it is surely reasonable for employers to take action to keep their businesses running while a strike is going on. Finally, the proposed lifting of restrictions on secondary action are a serious step backwards. They would invite a return to the disputes of the 1970s, which would not be in anyone’s best interests.”
Playing on the stereotype of militant unionists and the three-day week might be necessary to combat the claims of the Tories that we’re actually just ‘reds’ by any other name, but is it really liberal?
I’ve always found the Lib Dems’ attitude to workplace activism rather ambivalent. The main issue that attracted me to the Liberal Democrats was the belief that the individual should be supported to make positive changes to his or her life. This is the value that underlines our belief in localism, decentralisation and the small state. Yet the principle is only partially applied by the party to an area where many of us spend a large proportion of our waking life – work.
Lib Dem policy generally favours positive changes to health and safety law, and employment protection. But it supports giving powers to employers to essentially ignore the concerns of their staff. By undermining an individual employee’s ultimate sanction, the withdrawal of his or her labour, we’re saying that we believe that unionism is only about left-wing trouble-making and not legitimate bargaining.
One doesn’t have to believe in constant industrial action, nor think that employees should have the biggest say in business decisions to recognise that the ability, the possible threat, to disrupt an employer’s business might be needed to make sure that an employer genuinely consults over certain issues and negotiates in good faith about others.
Support for workplace activism and trade unionism should be key planks of our employment policies, as a way to make hugely positive improvements to an individual’s life.
* Anthony Fairclough is Chair of Merton Borough Liberal Democrats. He is an NUJ member, and former union learning representative.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Daniel Walker
David Raw
Jenny Barnes
Tom Bailey
Gill Travers
27 Comments
Anthony,
Isn’t there are balance to be struck? Are you seriously saying someone should be able to stop working on the basis of any demand they make and still insist on being paid in full for as long as they see fit?
Isn’t it liberal to uphold the basic freedom of two parties to make an agreement; I do something gor you and you pay me and either of us can walk away if we’re not happy.
Antony
Your opening paragraph is a straw man, as it misses out the key “so you refused to work” before “and he then stopped paying you”.
I would take umbrage if my employer unilateally decided to stop paying me because I disagreed with him on what my pay should be, but not if I was refusing to do the job I was employed to do.
I have considerable sympathy with your concern over workplace rights, but I am not convinced that Trade Unionism provides the answer. The problem with Trade Unions is that they are groups which operate for the mutual benefit of their own members, but often to the detriment of everything that surrounds. Setting employer against worker, or one union against another union, or the unionised against the non-unionised, is not a recipe for either national unity or economic prosperity. So on balance, I feel that Liberal Democrats are right to distance ourselves from Unionism. A better way to empower workers would be to facilitate increased mobility, training, and flexible working arrangements – that sort of thing. Give power to the individual, not to the collective which will inevitably succumb to pursuing its own political aims in the fullness of time.
To Antony Hook; I am saying that there’s a balance, and I think that our policy would give too much power to the employer to ignore its employees.
Actually my major concern is not that you don’t get paid when you’re on strike (you don’t currently anyhow) but that our policy would allow employers of unskilled and semi-skilled workers (who arguably have the worst pay and conditions) to carry on completely as normal whether its employees are on strike or not. Under our policies, such people would have no bargaining power whatsoever, and so why should their employer listen to them. If they go on strike, so what? They’ll get new people in.
The “basic freedom of two parties to make an agreement” only exists if both parties have got some bargaining power, or else the state gets involved to “make it fair”. As liberals, we probably want a balance between state involvement and employer (or employee) diktats.
Graeme, yes my introduction was intended to be controversial and a little sensationalist in order to get a bit of attention. But it is effectively what we’re saying.
If the threat of strike action means nothing, then why should your manager take heed of your requests for more money, or better terms, or action to stop bullying? At the end of the day, he knows you won’t do anything about it.
Of course, not all employers are like that, and of course, there are plenty of ways to negotiate that don’t involve threatening to walk out. As a former union rep in the private sector, I’ve used a few of them and strike never crossed my mind. My point is that without the threat of potential sanction, there is no obligation on the part of an employee to negotiate. Any attempts to negotiate are completely one-sided as the employer holds all the cards . . .
(sorry, in that last post above it should say “on the part of the employer” not “employee”)
Laurence; it seems to me that you’re suggesting a more “individualistic” opposition to unionism – that their collectivism is in some way bad. I don’t see that it’s a problem if a group of people working together only operate for their own benefit. But then again a company and it’s managers, directors and board only work for their own (or possibly the companies’ profits’) good. Why shouldn’t employees work together to look out for their rights?
Is a company’s bank balance always more important than the good of its employees?
I agree that intra-union strife and the left-wing agendas pushed by many unions are no good for anyone, including their members – but it’s precisely because people like us (ie pro-workplace rights but anti left-wing trouble-making) refuse to engage with unions that they act in the way they do!
I would consider joining a trade union if there’s one other than Amicus covers my line of work.
Lol. I would of course suggest that all Lib Dem members opt out of the political fund if they join a trade union. One doesn’t want to “do a Lit” and (accidentally) fund the Labour party.
Isn’t the reason that Liberal Democrats “attitude to workplace activism rather ambivalent” is that it is not relevant to the whole economy, and even less so to one we would support?
The traditional model of trade unionism fits with economic structures of large numbers of individual workers doing similar jobs within large employers, traditionally in heavy industries such as mining or manufacturing.
We don’t have that sort of economy any more and Lib Dems would not support it. We, as Liberals, should support small businesses and diversity within the economy. Trade Unionism doesn’t really fit with this.
I admit that our policies regarding emplyee rights aren’t yet as robust as they could (and hopefully will) be, but I believe they are a step in the right direction to squaring the circle of protecting individual employee rights, whilst providing as much flexibility within the employment market for employee and employer alike.
I admit it is more difficult to adapt the traditional model of unionism to small companies, but there are still many businesses that employ copious employees. The challenge is how does the individual in the small company make a difference to his working conditions?
Also, it’s not just about “employee rights” which implies a state imposed solution. Legal employment rights should be the minimum that any employee has, not the best that any employee can hope for. I’d like to see the Liberal Democrats supporting individual employees to make changes in their job and working practices that matter to them as individuals or collectively within a business, not trying to impose a one-size-for-all set of legal employee rights and saying “problem solved”. On that basis – must do some work now!
I’ve never been very comfortable with the balance that has been struck in union legislation.
As it stands, it gives unionised workforces the power to threaten to break their contract with their employer with impunity: they withold their labour (“go on strike”) until their employer’s business suffers so much that s/he gives in.
However, it is illegal for an employer to threaten to break their contract with their employees: they cannot withold wages(“a lockout”) until their employees’ suffer so much that they give in.
Without at least allowing the employer to make alternative arrangements (i.e. employ temporary labour to continue operating) the law would be giving unions unlimited power to blackmail employers.
The result (as shown during the C20th) is not higher employee wages but higher unemployment, as companies are damaged by strike action and employers become wary of employing staff on permanent contracts.
Of course, unions are only interested in the rights of current workers (“ I’m alright, Jack“); the unemployed have no union to speak for them.
Tom, workers don’t get paid when they’re on strike – so you won’t get many unions that have an “unlimited power to blackmail employers” – their members can’t afford it.
And if my company made me work terribly long hours – maybe dangerously long; or failed to take action against bullying; or gave me a pay cut each year by failing to match inflation whilst rewarding its executives with massive bonuses, then I’d think it pretty silly if someone accused me of blackmail just because I wanted to do something about it. Especially if my employer wouldn’t negotiate, and I was willing to go without pay to do something about it.
Of course; company executives are largely only interested in their profit margins and the bonuses for making those profits (they’re certainly alright, Jack) – they’re not interested in the unemployed. And they certainly don’t run businesses to give people jobs – there are plenty of “incentives” to pay rubbish wages and give out temporary contracts.
Obviously there’s a balance, I don’t think it could be argued that unionised workers are holding businesses to ransom.
Anthony,
Isn’t the reality that a strike already can be pretty devestating to any company. To give workers some “bargaining power” do you really need to also ban companies from using temporary labour during the strike?
Aren’t you basically saying a company has no right to do any business (except the payroll) if its workers don’t want it to?
Tom makes reference to the negative experience of business from strikes, but I think a bigger problem comes from the fact that unions have developed a not-undeserved reputation for trying to play politics with their members.
Its hardly like they’ve only ever acted in their members employment interests. Unions have in the past tried to use their strike power to bring down governments and laws must make it clear that this is undemocratic and unjustifiable.
Most strikes are avoidable.During the 1970s companies in such countries as Holland and Germany,workers and employers were willing to negotiate and submit their disagreements to arbitration.There was none of the “trench warfare” that destroyed much of British industry.
Why not? It’s not like anyone would be doing it every five minutes. A strike is pretty devastating to the employees – they’ve got to be in a situation that’s so bad they’ll go without pay.
If an employer can just carry on as if nothing has happened by hiring temporary workers then why should it *ever* bother to negotiate about anything, especially those employers in the semi-skilled/unskilled sectors? Most employees don’t negotiate over the terms of their contract, most employees don’t have a say on their workplace conditions or their pay, so they have no say in something they spend a huge part of their waking life doing. Why is there so much fear in our Party about ordinary people having a say. We argue for it at a local government election? Or are you suggesting that residents can be trusted to have a say in how their area is run, but not in how their workplace is run (and we’re not talking about the *final* say, just *a say* a right to be heard and your ideas considered.
It’s in no one’s interest for a company to go out of business, but it’s in an employer’s interest to pay the lowest he can get away with.
I agree with Anthony’s analysis. We need to have a much more consistent position on employment issues generally. I’m a bit fed up with Labour constantly throwing back at us that we’re anti-trade union, because we ‘voted against the minimum wage’
Speaking as a former chair of a Unison branch, it is a spurious argument about employees having ‘too much power’, and ‘bringing down governments’ This is just Daily Mail speak. Strikes are very rare now. Support for workplace activism and protection for employees in the workplace is a fundamental right, which has been fought for and gained over many years. As a party which believes fundamentally in freedom, equality etc, we should have a postive attitude towards trade unions, and where possible seek to work in partnership. A few years ago, Charles Kennedy, was the 1st Lib Dem leader to address the TUC conference. This was very well received and sent a positive message to all trade unionists, who aren’t all natural Labour supporters.
This anti-union stance is just another part of the drift to the Right that is so damaging our party, and preventing us winning the disillsioned and principled Labour vote.
Trade unions help to empower individuals by preventing them being victimised and picked on by corporate bullies. And assist them obtain a living wage.
As elected leader of the journalists at the Observer during the Lonrho takeover, it was the NUJ that gave us the collective power to negotiate for the kind of essential editorial safeguards a great newspaper needs.
Or perhaps our right-wing crypto-Conservatives would say whoever owns it should decide what it becomes?
Our most popular policy was once to end industrial strife by giving workers shares and thus a stake in the company they worked in.
Like many Liberal values and principles it melted away as we began to win more power.
The balance of working arrangements assumes a level of mutual benefit for it to work, so when an agreed employer-employee relationship becomes antagonistic it is failing.
And when the only option for a set of workers is to strike then it highlights a wider failure to provide/allow for opportunities through education and enterprise.
#18 provides a good example of the relevance of trades union representation, but the problem of distributing ownership (NOT redistributing the wealth) of the economy is unresolved so long as the full value of collective investment in education and society remain inadequate/unrecognised. Somewhere there is a financial mechanism missing.
On both sides it is a issue of finding the right balance, which is a question of leadership.
I want to respond to Jonathan’s comments. Although I am broadly sympathetic, I think the left of the party needs to get out of victum mode and make it’s case in a positive way. If we object then we should be putting forward amendments. This area is not one where I have expertise so I have not done so, but I hope someone has.
I wanted to agree with James S (19) that if an employer-employee relationship breaks down to where a strike becomes likely, then there certainly has been a failure of leadership somewhere – either on the part of the employers or the union.
In terms of making a positive case for workplace activism and it’s place within Lib Dem policy (20) then I can make no better case than by analogy with localism. We champion the right and the need of individuals to be involved in decisions affecting them, and argue that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible in government. We regularly put this into practice where we’re in local government. For many people, their employer has more of a direct influence over their daily lives than their local council does (working conditions, hours, pay, where you spend most of your time) and for that reason we should be pushing to give employees an appropriate level of influence in the decisions that affect them. This shouldn’t be the final say, but it should be a real say. Trades unions aren’t perfect, but they’re the structure we have at the moment. By working collectively employees can gain a formal right to consult or negotiate (these terms mean different things!) over a number of issues, with a formal structure in place to deal with any failure to agree over negotiations (numerous meetings, ACAS arbitration). As an ultimate and last step, these procedures allow the trade union to strike. However, most disputes don’t get that far.
Employees’ legal rights are clearly important, but they don’t replace the need to allow employees to be involved in decision-making. And it’s not just about allowing more training opportunities and flexible working; there are any number of even minor things than an employee may wish to influence: from the type of biscuits in the buscuit tin, to the source of electricity the employer uses – why shouldn’t employees have the right to make their case and be listened to?
One of our guiding principles as Lib Dems (as I see it) is that the law should set a fair framework in place and allow individuals freedom within that framework to reach their own solutions. If we take a positive approach to trades unions, that’s exactly what our industrial relations policies could be about.
I fail to see why unions (or companies for that matter) should be given any special status under the law.
You should be free to join a union, but that union should not have the power to compel you to join, or force you to pay money to them if you don’t wish to (as is the case with some US teachers unions).
Neither side should be given permission to break the contract of employment – if you sign a contract saying you will work 90 hours a week then tough – you signed it. If you signed one saying you’ll work 40 hours a week and the employer wants you to work longer hours then they’re out of luck. Your contract should say under what circumstances they can fire you, I doubt that would be one of them.
Unions can be detrimental to consumers, employers and workers (note it was unions who didn’t want female workers – to protect their member’s jobs). They can however provide valuable services to their members when it comes to legal matters.
There should be no state sanctioned right to strike, or right to sack people at will (unless stated in the contract).
But Tristan, doesn’t that fail to take into account that both employees and companies may wish to change terms and conditions during the course of an individual’s employment? Without giving a legal framework for negotiating rights to some collective group then this would never be possible (eg how could a company negotiate changes in terms of thousands of employee’s contracts, or decide who and how many people should be made redundant). Without this special status, why would unions even exist . . . they wouldn’t be able to achieve anything at all (union officials regularly take up matters on behalf of individuals, but even then they are backed up by the ability to invoke the disputes procedure or bring in outside negotiators in order to get policies changed)
The truth is in such circumstances, without a legal framework to negotiate through, an employee would get no say in these things whatsoever. When you join a company do you really think you can negotiate changes to your contract? That’s a luxury only afforded to well-paid executives. This idea of “rugged individuals” (both employees and employers!) negotiating their own contracts might be philosophically appealing to liberals – but the true liberalism is making sure there’s a fair framework for both parties to have their say and be flexible, without either side being able to impose. What’s so wrong with allowing a system that allows employees to have a fair chance to influence workplace decisions that affect them?
It may be a truism, but it has been oft repeated by many of the more thoughtful captains of industry: “No truly well managed organisation ever has a labour dispute.”
People recall the excessive power unions once exercised; they forget the appalling management that allowed it to happen.
One can’t pretend that trades union have never been sexist, racist or run dictatorally by bullies, but the benign effects of collective action are enormous.
Where a person benefits from the action of the union, such as its protection of individuals treated wrongly, it is fair that s/he is asked to contribute.
Similar arguments can be made against compulsory membership of the NHS, for example, or having to insure one’s car. Why should I have to pay my residents association for repairing our road?
Geoff Payne raises a different but interesting point: That we who now see ourselves on the Left of the party have failed to stand our corner, or make out a coherent case against neolithic ‘economic’ Liberals, more concerned with ‘freedoms to’ than with ‘freedoms from’.
He is largely correct. It is not enough to say that the inside right and midfield is so crowded with New Blue Labour and Cameron’s Conservatives, that the only place for us is out on the Left, where we could effortlessly double our votes from the present position.
Or even to just repeat the famous words of the great Graham Turner: ‘Do I not like orange.’
Perhaps we should start a union.
As Meral notes, strikes are low in Britain today, both by our own historical standards and by international ones. BUT some sectors do seem to be strike prone – the post office, the underground, university lecturers (my union seems to call me out almost every year). Most strikes now happen in monopoly services, and disproportionately in public services and former public services.
In cases where consumers have a choice, I don’t think that firms should be able to strike break. If Tesco is closed, go to Asda. But where customers have no choice, I think it is different – I want the fire brigade to be able to hire in others if firemen go on strike. Ditto if train drivers strike.
Sometimes unions behave scandalously. My union (AUT) asked me not to mark exams last year – and said that as it wasn’t a strike, we should all get paid. Exam marking is clearly part of our jobs, and to refuse to do it but still expect to get paid was at best cheeky. And the employer went along with it! (I did my marking, and all scripts at LSE were marked on time).
Unions can be the voice of vested interests as well as of reason. Clearly we are all in favour of the right to join a union, but I would be surprised were many LibDems to want bigger powers for them
Trade Unions do have a place in representative democracy, simply because they have a real role in representing people – specifically in the workplace.
The democratic estate of the Trades Unions is clearly unbalanced by their constitutional ties to one specific partisan grouping – which they argue is necessary in order to advance their cause. This relationship has evolved into codependency which is to the benefit of neither and is to the detriment of public debate.
With a seperation of democratic interests (ie by giving proper, indirect representation to all the estates of the country in a reformed HoL – Lords, estates, geddit?) the TUC would become a benign force implicated in active government, rather than the sad neutered talking shop that it has become since (and as a result of) Labour’s entry into government.
This would also have the consequence of totally undermining the antagonistic Labour movement across the whole of one wing of the political spectrum. But this is a task they are incapable of fulfilling – not even Blair could explicitly turn Labour into a social democratic party. I suspect, however, that the autocratic-statist consensus is more likely to start to crumble from the left with the decoupling of the cooperative movement from the Labour party – which will happen when Brown’s Treasury-enforced diktats become completely indigestible.
The cause of equity and equality – in the workplace or wherever – can only be successfully borne by a liberal movement, because they are wholly liberal values.
I have to agree with anthony, simple as that