Does Striking Make Sense? – In response to my friend Marcus.

Marcus is unashamedly Tory. I say unashamedly, he would say ‘Proud’. He is one of the new breed of Tories, socially as well as economically liberal. He believes in small government, equality and economic freedoms. He puts his money where is mouth is too – he is a Councillor in North London and, judging by the amount of work he does there, a good councillor at that. We work together at Comic Relief (so it turns out Tories can be nice people) and I count him as a friend. He is however, and I hope he will not mind me saying so, wrong when it comes to the public sector strikes scheduled for this summer. You can read his blogpost at http://www.marcuseast.org/archives/635

Marcus highlights the following reasons as to why and how the Unions are wrong side of this debate:

– The Government has no choice
– Public and Private Sector Pay differentials are not what they used to be, negating the need for enhanced pensions for teachers, nurses, doctors etc.
– Only 20% of the workforce actually voted ‘yes’ to strikes
– It weakens the economy, is a tactical move that dismisses the big picture and is playing into George Osborne’s hands

So let’s look at them one-by-one.

The Government has no choice

First, the Government nearly always has a choice, and this time is no different. It could cut elsewhere for a start. Trident perhaps? I would rather secure better teachers, doctors and nurses than ever more extreme ways of killing one another. Or they could choose to cut the deficit over 10 years rather than 5. Maybe, they look at alternative taxation? The Robin Hood Tax is just such a place to start. I am not specifically endorsing any of these, but to say that their is no choice but to significantly worsen public sector pensions is simply not true.

Public and Private Sector Pensions are not what they used to be

At face value Marcus is right on this. In some areas public and private sector pay have converged significantly, and in some cases public sector pay has actually leapt ahead. What he is not telling you is that this is mostly for the worst paid in society, for example cleaners, where Unions have worked hard to ensure that those on the lowest wages in the public sector can still enjoy a living wage. For most public sector staff however it is still true that, should they choose to jump to the private sector, their pay will jump significantly at the same time. It is also worth remembering that it was not so long ago that many private sector companies also ran final salary pension schemes. It is precisely because they were often non-Unionised that this deferred salary (for that is what a pension is) could be removed from them. My big point on this though is simply – If we want equality between public and private sector reward, why does it always have to be at the sacrifice of good working conditions and reward? How about we try racing to the top for once rather than the bottom?

Only 20% of the workforce voted yes for strikes

Of all the the things anti-Unionists say, this has to be the most disingenuous. It is true that 20% of the workforce voted for strikes, but it is wrong to infer that 80% therefore do not support it. Some people feel more passionately about things than others, that is for sure, but Union members are aware at what is at stake and, if they feel passionately against it, they can and will vote against. More than this, why does anyone think it is fair we hold Unions to a higher level of democratic accountability than we do our government? Only about 22% (before you ask, if you include the LId-Dems it increases to a shade over 30%). of those eligible to vote in the general election in 2010 cast it for The Tories, does that make them illegitimate, or is it a case of 22% good, 20% bad?

Unions are thinking tactically, not strategically.

Marcus opens with a misunderstanding of Unions typical of so many of Thatcher’s Children by stating:

Weakening the economy can hardly be in the interests of the people that the unions purport to protect and serve – they should be thinking strategically, rather than focus on the little picture.

The thing is, and this is what they don’t get, Union’s don’t purport to protect and serve anyone. ‘The Union’ is not some single top-down body with an all-powerful CEO. It is instead the democratic realisation of workers coming together to represent one another’s interests. Marcus may argue that choosing to fight over pensions is a tactical mistake, which is his view, but it is important to realise this is a decision taken, not by some Union baron, but via numerous elected bodies and via a ballot. Moreover, pensions are a real issue for workers – the suggested changes to the pension scheme will mean people retiring later, paying more for their pensions and receiving less in return. Surely enough to make anyone a little bit peeved? Doubly-so when you remember it was not them that caused the financial crisis in the first place.

Finally, Marcus makes an argument that these strikes are ideologically motivated, and playing into George Osborne’s hands. If they are ideological does that automatically make them wrong? I am ideologically for workers enjoying certain rights and privileges at work – one of these is that they are able to retire with dignity. It seems to me that any attempt to erode this is worthy of a fight. Is it playing into evil George’s hands? Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Capitulation is of course an option, but not one I would choose. Besides, George shouldn’t be too bullish, Tories have underestimated the union movement before and it has been to their peril.

My First Lib-Dem meeting

The slight musty smell of a church hall, the hushed chatter amongst  early arrivers and the squeak of cheap plastic chairs as they are laid out ready for the new members, who inevitably then never materialise. This might have been my first Lib-Dem meeting, but it wasn’t my first ever political meeting and I felt gratified to know that some things seem to remain the same whatever party you choose to support.

It has been a relatively short, though exciting journey for me as I made my way from Labour activist through a state of political confusion and then out the other side into a fully fledged member of the Liberal Democrats. So, as I arrived at my first meeting of the Hounslow Branch ‘Executive Meeting’ I don’t mind admitting that I was a little nervous. Is it true that all Lib-Dem activists have beards and wear sandals? Will I be bullied for my recent membership of  ‘the enemy’? Or, worst of all, will they just  ignore me?

I needn’t have worried – the people were lovely, properly lovely. Everyone I met shook me by the hand and welcomed me whole-heartedly to my new political home, there was sympathy about ‘the Labour thing’, with many admitting they too used to be members – and there was barely a beard, or sandal, in sight.

The meeting itself was an eclectic mix, far more so than I have ever been used to – the chair, who grew up in Llanelli and still has a hint of Welsh about him, admitted to being a Conservative in his younger days (a lonely thing for a young man growing up in South Wales you would imagine) whilst two seats down was a proud member, and huge fan, of the PCS and Mark Serwotka respectively. It took me a while to work out what brought them together – how could someone on the centre-right sit so comfortably alongside a woman who I am sure would have described herself as a ‘Bennite’ in previous decades? The answer it turns out is simple, and the same reason that I was there – they believe in fairness, in social equality and in liberalism – the right for people to make the best of their lives in the way they see fit. If you can agree on that, the rest seems somewhat frivolous.

What struck me most however was the willingness to debate and the candour and honesty that emanated from everyone in the room. Most of the meeting was taken up with a round-the-room debrief of how the election went  and what it meant – every person listened politely, even when they did go on for a bit, or offer a clear minority opinion. People responded with courtesy and most of all everyone wanted to listen and learn from their friends and colleagues experiences. Even a disagreement between the two parliamentary candidates was an opportunity to debate and explore ideas rather an entrenchment into political ideology and a way to score a political point or two.

It was a breath of fresh air to be amongst people whose priority was to debate policies and ideas rather than procedures and it has made me want to do more – I can see how I might be able to help and support the branch in their campaigns and now I have been inspired and energised to actually do it.

So as I left into the cooling night air (for this was not a short meeting) I reflected on what had not only been an engaging evening, but an enlightening one too – The new politics is thriving and you can find it in a church hall near you.

The right to strike must be sacrosanct

I think Unite are wrong. Their strike is self-indulgent, self-fulfilling and lacking wider public support. More importantly, the longer the dispute goes on for the less able Unite officials will be able to deliver for their members. Finally, it is not as if BA staff would have a bad deal in relation to the rest of the industry, even if some of their perks were removed. But then who cares about me? This is not my dispute and I am not one of the staff that will be affected by the changes – you have to trust that they understand the wider implications of the strike and yet still feel they have no other avenue to explore. In a horrid bastardisation of Voltaire – ‘I might not agree with your strike, but I will defend your right to have it’.

The right to withdraw labour is one of the few genuine rights of the worker – to undermine this is to undermine the most powerful defense a group of employees has against arbitrary and unfair fundamental changes to their contract. It is not easy to strike by the way – I will not go into detail here, although you can find a pretty good guide on the business link website. But put simply – you need to tell the employers that you intend to ballot, appoint an independent scrutineer, work out who  should and should not be included in the ballot (you have to do this yourself, there is nothing compelling the employer to supply you with employment lists), give those affected notice of the ballot, ballot them, count it, make all efforts to let everyone know the details of the results. Then and only then can you think of actually going on strike… I am not saying this is bad, I believe that if workers go on strike it should be on the basis of a fair and transparent ballot – I am just pointing out that it is not a simple, cheap or easy option that Union ‘barons’ revert to every time they don’t get their own way.

However, apparently the Judiciary have now come to the conclusion that this is not enough. In what feels eerily like a coordinated attack on the right to strike common sense has been thrown out of the window to be replaced with a more draconian, less pragmatic view of the law. Six months ago Unite lost a high-court battle over a strike ballot after BA claimed that a number of people given ballot papers had already accepted terms for voluntary redundancy. Fair enough you may say – although it is worth remembering what I mentioned above, Unite have no access to employee lists and therefore it is likely their membership details are always liable to some lag. Secondly, the ballot was won with something like 90% approval… the couple of dozen people BA suggested were ineligible would not have even made a difference to the result. Yet, in strict accordance with the law, the strike was deemed unlawful and Unite were forced to return to the drawing board.

Yesterday’s ruling by Justice McCombe was if anything even harsher – BA did not dispute the ballot, just that there was not sufficient evidence that Unite had informed every person balloted of the result. Note that BA were not arguing that the will of the employees was to strike and they did not even bring forward any witnesses who could confirm they had not been informed. Justice McCombe stated that ‘a balance of convenience’ had led to his decision – you have to ask convenience for whom?

As I said at the beginning of this post, personally I don’t get the logic of this strike and am certainly no blanket supporter of all Union action – but the right to strike has to be sacrosanct for without it we lose the ability to defend our hard-fought rights within the workplace. I wish Unite the best of luck in their appeal and hope that, with a new age of politics we also see a new, more pragmatic age for the Judiciary.