I think the anger is a bit misdirected here – shouldn’t you be asking why the unions can’t do their job properly?

@Jason I think that’s missing the point a bit. I think it’s pretty clear that the many hoops that they are being made to jump through in such a precise way are not reasonable hoops.

Frankly, I think it’s a matter for the union’s own internal democracy if they want to report spoiled ballots to their members. It’s a good idea that they do it, but it’s none of the business of the employer and they certainly shouldn’t be able to prevent them from striking because of it.

Similarly, if a union takes two days to report the results of it’s internal ballot to an employer, what of it? There’s an argument that it’s in the public interest to compel unions to give employers sufficient prior notice of a strike (and it’s a separate argument) but in the highlighted case sufficient prior notice was clearly given.

And why do two strike notices concerning the same dispute but two different regulatory parts of it have to be on two bits of paper? This doesn’t affect the legitimacy of the strike.

The reason these bizarre regulations are in place is to make it harder to strike. If you watched the MPs arguing against John McDonnell’s bill in the Commons on Friday the main line of attack was “This will make it easier to strike, you are going to make British business uncompetitive”. That’s not consistent with workers’ rights, and as he pointed out in the chamber the UK actually has obligations under agreements signed with the EU and ILO that require it to change the current system. Not that it’s going to happen any time soon.

I could accept that they might not be strictly necessary (although I’d want to see a proper description of the facts and arguments before I did), but they certainly don’t seem “onerous” in the sense that it’s not reasonable for the union to comply.

A well-run office ought to be able to send a fax in less than two days, and have somebody read the regulations about how things need to be presented. Discouraging incompetence is better than promoting laws to excuse it.

Sorry for the double reply, but I missed a bit:

I definitely don’t accept that full transparency is a matter of “internal democracy” for the Unions. The employer has a completely legitimate interest in making sure the industrial action is the fairly expressed democratic will of the members, and that requires strict adherence to regulations (just as it does for government elections)

Incompetence – or simply making mistakes – obviously isn’t something to be celebrated. But workers whose union rep makes a mistake still have workers’ rights, however ‘incompetent’ their representatives are.

When an infraction on the part of a bureaucrat that would not otherwise affect the outcome of the ballot is used to ban a strike through the courts – as with all of the above examples – those rights are being eroded.

When a very straightforward and uncomplicated fix to the legislation is proposed and rejected, they’re being deliberately eroded.

I would think that the requirement for workers to establish (and fund) organisations with resources and expertise in order to jump through legal hoops, just to defend their rights is enough justification for the criticism.

Jones; the state is extending a huge degree of special legal protection to workers who want to strike, it’s not at all unreasonable to insist on it being regulated to prevent abuse.

The critics of the bill appear to have missed its point. It would enact that an error in a ballot or notice would not render industrial action invalid provided that error was judged to be unlikely to affect the result or a reasonable understanding of the action contemplated. The de minimis principle is well-accepted in other areas of law, and I cannot see why it should not apply in the context of industrial relations. It will still be up to a court to determine the issue where there is a challenge, but challenges should be fewer as the parties’ minds would be concentrated on resolving the substantive industrial dispute rather than expensive satellite litigation.

If critics believe this would increase the number of disputes, they have to say why this is necessarily a bad thing. Workers who have failed to negotiate a resolution of a dispute with an employer have no other recourse than industrial action, other than capitulation. The law as it stands is constructed to weight the industrial balance heavily in favour of the employer (“heavily” because of the trivial nature of the challenges that have succeeded). It therefore appears that (some) critics oppose the bill because they wish to keep this imbalance or exaggerate it further.

George McLean; they certainly do have a further recourse if industrial action fails – they could leave and get another job.

To possibly save some time, I can think of two likely responses to that…

The first, “There might not be another job to go to”, is stupid and easily dismissed. If there’s not a more attractive job out there, then the employer has the conditions about right for the market.

The second is much more reasonable, that there would be a better job but switching to it would be prohibitively difficult for some reason (geography, time between payment, etc).

I think those switching costs would cause genuine hardship for the very low paid, and they do need some protection. For some reason, though, they rarely seem to be the ones striking.

@ 9. Jason

I didn’t say “if industrial action fails”, I said if negotiations fail workers have no other options than to take industrial action or capitulate. I think you agree, because resigning is a form of capitulation (although a more sensible course might be to stay and have another go later). But you know the reality is that people don’t leave jobs just because the terms and conditions aren’t exactly what they want: they form trade unions for a collective voice to improve Ts and Cs incrementally (and sometimes dramatically).

Your line is “if you don’t like it, leave”; whereas the worker’s alternative is “if we don’t like it, fight”. Your last contribution moved you away from the issue: what does your suggested strategy for workers in dispute with their employer have to do with the draft bill?

At present, if industrial action is injuncted because of a minor technical error, despite substantive worker support, the union would ballot again, and indeed may get higher support if the workers regard the employer’s tactics as legalistic nit-picking. Nit-picking does not promote better working relationships, and it is nit-picking that the bill aims to prevent.

If you believe that employers should be able to prevent workers using their only remaining weapon (industrial action) by picking up trivialities that do not substantially affect the result of a ballot or the reasonable understanding of a notice, then you should oppose the bill. Those of us in support of the bill believe that the present legislation is wrongly weighted where a minor technical error overwhelms a substantive result in favour of action.

Maybe it depends whose side you’re on.

@9 Jason: “If there’s not a more attractive job out there, then the employer has the conditions about right for the market.”

Please don’t pursue a career in industrial relations, Jason.

George McLean (#10); You’re right, it’s a bit of an aside, but I was responding to your comment.

You might be right that nitpicking is counterproductive for the company, but surely that’s up to them to decide?

And I’m not on anybody’s side. Vulnerable people should be protected from abuse by their employers, but ultimately an employee has the choice whether to accept the terms and conditions offered. Nothing is worth anything more than what somebody will pay you for it, including your labour.

Charlieman (#11); that’s fair

I think the reason that many people find the idea of forcing the unions to abide by overly restrictive and in all honesty pointless minutiae is that this was the stuff of union grievance when these regulations were drafted, sometimes it still is.

Sauce for goose et al. Perhaps a bit more sense on both sides would help.

@ 9

“The first, “There might not be another job to go to”, is stupid and easily dismissed. If there’s not a more attractive job out there, then the employer has the conditions about right for the market. ”

Um, it’s only stupid and easily dismissed if you don’t think workers are entitled to a minimum quality of life. If you’re such a hardcore libertarian that you’re fine with wage slavery, fine, but that doesn’t make everyone who thinks otherwise an idiot.

Y’know if the Powers That Be want to demand such exacting standards from the trades unions it would be nice if actual elections were held to a similar benchmark. How many MPs are sitting comfortably in the House with (far) less than 50% of the vote, for example? Talk about a democratic deficit…

Chaise Guevara (#14); I think it’s very important that everybody has a minimum quality of life, so I wouldn’t leave it to how good a group of people are at collective bargaining – it’s the government’s job.

How many strikes are about maintaining a “minimum quality of life”, anyway?

Chaise Guevara (#14); I think it’s very important that everybody has a minimum quality of life, so I wouldn’t leave it to how good a group of people are at collective bargaining – it’s the government’s job.

It doesn’t seem sensible to leave such an important thing to the government.

17

So…it should be the responsibility of……. the individual, the Big Society…?

@ 16

“I think it’s very important that everybody has a minimum quality of life, so I wouldn’t leave it to how good a group of people are at collective bargaining – it’s the government’s job.”

Yes, and if laws were strong enough (arguably too strong) on the side of workers nobody would feel the need to strike. But that’s obviously not the case. So what you’re essentially saying is: “people shouldn’t go on strike because they should leave it to the government to intervene, even though it won’t.”

“How many strikes are about maintaining a “minimum quality of life”, anyway?”

Arguably, all of them. Pick your definition. What income do you need for a minimum quality of life? How many days off a year? What level of workplace threat to your health is acceptable?

I agree that many strikes are unnecessary and that the unions are in some cases the bullies. But that doesn’t justify the blanket condemnation of anyone who doesn’t follow strict libertarian principles as “stupid”.

So…it should be the responsibility of……. the individual, the Big Society…?

It is the responsibility of government to ensure our quality of life is of a standard. It is in our remit to hold the government to account should we feel it isn’t meeting its responsibilities. One of the ways in which we do so is by electing representatives from time to time. Another is by protesting or striking. I’m sure there are others (e.g. judicial reviews).

As a libertarian I don’t believe the government should interfere in how trade unions run their affairs any more than it should interfere in how businesses run their affairs.

Richard (#21); That doesn’t seem like a consistent position – if you’re going to argue from libertarian principles, what business does the government have in giving special protection to employees who strike?

21

“As a libertarian I don’t believe the government should interfere in how trade unions run their affairs any more than it should interfere in how businesses run their affairs.”

Fair play. I’m always amazed at the sheer hypocrisy of libertarians who think that unions are a special case where freedom should be restricted.

22 – I didn’t say it should.