WHAT do you do as a responsible government when you are faced with multiple strikes and industrial action spreading across various parts of the public sector?
A responsible government might recognise that existing legislation introduced by Conservative governments and left in place by Labour already makes it very difficult for a union to bring its members out on strike. The wildcat strikes which afflicted Britain in the 1970s can no longer occur. Nowadays, a union can only call its members out on strike after a ballot of its workers.
The law specifies that all industrial action ballots must reach a 50% turn out with a majority voting in favour of strike action. For members in 'important public services', such as the ambulance service, 50% must turn out to vote and at least 40% of all those entitled to vote must vote in favour.
Additionally, unions are obliged to give employers at least 14 days' notice of any strike action in order to give time for mediation or negotiations, which could avert the strike. Unions are prohibited by law from forcing any worker to go on strike. There are also strict laws in place about picketing. It is unlawful for pickets to use threatening or abusive behaviour against people walking past or crossing the picket line, neither can they block people or vehicles from trying to get into the workplace which is on strike.
READ MORE: Glasgow GPs 'face abuse fuelled by English media reporting'
The law also says that pickets must picket only at or near their own place of work. The mass pickets which were a feature of the bitter miners' strike in the 1980s would be unlawful now, as would the strike itself, called as it was without a ballot of members.
This existing law means that strikes only happen as a last resort, when negotiations with employers have proven fruitless. So, you might think that when industrial action is occurring across so many different areas of public services, railways, teachers, border and immigration staff, driving instructors, highway agency staff, postal workers, even nurses, that the government would recognise that unhappiness and anger is widespread amongst the vital workers who are key to the delivery of vital public services and would bend over backwards to address their demands.
But we don't have a responsible government; we have a Conservative Government which believes that performative macho posturing is good governance and which has come to the conclusion that the only reason there is so much industrial action affecting public services just now is because the UK's draconian laws on trade unions and industrial action are not draconian enough.
The Conservatives are now proposing even tougher laws to crack down on the right of workers to take strike action. The new law would allow employers to sue unions if minimum levels of service were not maintained during a strike. Striking workers who defy minimum service rules could face dismissal for breach of contract. The areas covered by the legislation include the NHS, transport, education, fire and rescue, and border security.
READ MORE: Strikes: 'Immoral' new legislation condemned by SNP and union bosses
Rishi Sunak has attempted to claim that the new law is aimed at guaranteeing public safety but it would also apply in fields like education.
A teachers' strike is certainly disruptive - that is, after all, the point of a strike – but it is hard to argue that the public are endangered as a result. Equally a rail strike is inconvenient for the public, but it hardly endangers people. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the real purpose of this legislation is to neuter industrial action and render it ineffective.
The new law would also allow agency workers "to fill vital staffing gaps caused by industrial strike action." Arguably this could put the public in danger if poorly trained agency staff are substituting for skilled and experienced workers.
This is legislation which appeals to the right-wing media and which does nothing to address the underlying reasons for industrial action. The SNP's deputy Westminster leader Mhairi Black has condemned the proposals as “immoral” saying the Tories continue to pander to the "hard-right rhetoric that has Westminster in a choke hold."
This is government by Daily Mail. Just a few months ago this government was encouraging us all to 'clap for carers' now it is threatening them with the sack.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here