Today, Trade Unionists from around the country gather in London for "A Future that Works" march ending in Hyde Park.
There are three things guaranteed to happen today. Firebrand TU leaders such as Mark Serwotka will call for a general strike. The police will kettle some protestors and other groups will damage or occupy central London shops such as Topshop or Vodafone.
This unfortunately will distract from the crucial message. That there is a genuine debate to be had over the extent, impact, speed and depth of cuts in the government spending programme.
A year ago, I would have attended and indeed, I did march in London on 26 March 2011. However, in that time, I have come to the conclusion that my union is equally damaging the debate with its own ideological rhetoric. An irony considering the lead the PCS takes in criticising the Coalition for its ideological opposition to the "state".
The PCS has singularly failed to grasp that this is not the seventies. We cannot conduct Industrial Relations or disputes based on an old outdated model that got overturned by Margaret Thatcher.
Instead I will be attending the East Of England Liberal Democrats Regional Conference.
Showing posts with label TUC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TUC. Show all posts
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Saturday, 26 May 2012
Calling for a General Strike - a different perspective
Walking through Cambridge today, I spotted the regular Socialist Worker Party stall near the Grafton Centre. The stall had posters of David Cameron with the tagline He must Go (well, its not up to the SWP but the electorate) and a poster with the inevitable cry out to the TUC to call a General Strike.
Leaving aside the fact that to call a strike requires an industrial dispute and a secret ballot of members. Yes, PCS, NUT and others have an existing mandate to strike. But to get the likes of the British Dietician Association and United Shops Distributive and Allied Workers involved would be a different kettle of fish. There would be no point in the TUC calling a general strike if all the affiliates are not taking part.
Is such a call realistic? Would the revolution win out?
For it to work, it has to be one hundred percent legal and without reproach. The slightest mistake in a ballot or to proceed without reference to law, no matter how tempting, will alienate the public, lead to injunctions and employers will be perfectly justifiable to dismiss for breach of contract and harsher rules introduced on calling a strike.
Your standard socialist as you might find in a Trade Council up and down the country has a theory that when taking this course of action, two million workers would walk out, Dave Cameron go "D'oh! Of course, its obvious! I must resign as a prime minister, dissolve parliament, call an election" out of which the Unions channel the spirit of 1973 and win through with a socialist government elected.
The socialists are fond of their history. But no so fond as to leave out the inconvenient bits that disrupts their narrative. The glaring omissions from the average socialist who harkens back to the glory days of 1973 are Wapping and the 1984 Miners Strike. Even Owen Jones missed this in his article for The Independent newspaper when discussing the use of the word socialist as an insult.
History is not on the Unions' side. The 1926 General Strike was a failure and more recently, Wapping and the 1984 Miners Strike have given Employers carte blanche to ride out an industrial dispute. The Government will do no less. They can't afford not to.
Even if by some miracle, the Left achieve their aims and the government falls, the Conservatives will do a re-run of Heath's "Who Runs Britain?". The only two winners out of this scenario will be the Tories, perhaps with an overall majority, or Labour who promises £8 in cuts for every £9 proposed by the coalition government and are certainly in no rush to overturn decades of anti-union laws.
The Unions are no longer in a position to hold a government or a country to ransom. A General Strike will fail and people who lose a days pay will lose it for nothing.
Leaving aside the fact that to call a strike requires an industrial dispute and a secret ballot of members. Yes, PCS, NUT and others have an existing mandate to strike. But to get the likes of the British Dietician Association and United Shops Distributive and Allied Workers involved would be a different kettle of fish. There would be no point in the TUC calling a general strike if all the affiliates are not taking part.
Is such a call realistic? Would the revolution win out?
For it to work, it has to be one hundred percent legal and without reproach. The slightest mistake in a ballot or to proceed without reference to law, no matter how tempting, will alienate the public, lead to injunctions and employers will be perfectly justifiable to dismiss for breach of contract and harsher rules introduced on calling a strike.
Your standard socialist as you might find in a Trade Council up and down the country has a theory that when taking this course of action, two million workers would walk out, Dave Cameron go "D'oh! Of course, its obvious! I must resign as a prime minister, dissolve parliament, call an election" out of which the Unions channel the spirit of 1973 and win through with a socialist government elected.
The socialists are fond of their history. But no so fond as to leave out the inconvenient bits that disrupts their narrative. The glaring omissions from the average socialist who harkens back to the glory days of 1973 are Wapping and the 1984 Miners Strike. Even Owen Jones missed this in his article for The Independent newspaper when discussing the use of the word socialist as an insult.
History is not on the Unions' side. The 1926 General Strike was a failure and more recently, Wapping and the 1984 Miners Strike have given Employers carte blanche to ride out an industrial dispute. The Government will do no less. They can't afford not to.
Even if by some miracle, the Left achieve their aims and the government falls, the Conservatives will do a re-run of Heath's "Who Runs Britain?". The only two winners out of this scenario will be the Tories, perhaps with an overall majority, or Labour who promises £8 in cuts for every £9 proposed by the coalition government and are certainly in no rush to overturn decades of anti-union laws.
The Unions are no longer in a position to hold a government or a country to ransom. A General Strike will fail and people who lose a days pay will lose it for nothing.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
A Tyranny of the Employers?
Once again, the siren voices call out for reform of employment law. And without too much surprise, plans to reform the employment tribunal system has been included in today's Queen's Speech.
The preamble to the constitution states that we exist to build a fair society.
Employment Tribunals on the whole deal with Discrimination cases and unfair dismissal cases.
I heard Lorely Burt MP at last year's Lib Dem East of England Regional Conference speaking of vexatious and malicious applications but offered no facts and figures to support this.
As the TUC says: "The clue is in the name. Employers already have plenty of powers to make fair dismissals."
On the whole, employers do treat employees fairly already under existing law. But where employers do not treat employees fairly, then it is right for the employee to have recourse. This measure creates a problem to be solved rather than being a solution to a problem and by its very nature illiberal.
The liberal approach is to be fair to employer and employees, tilting the balance one way or another does not fulfill this aim.
Just as much as there are rights and responsibilities on both side in a employer/employee relationship under existing relationships, we must be just as careful not to create a tyranny of the employers as a tyranny of the workers.
The preamble to the constitution states that we exist to build a fair society.
Employment Tribunals on the whole deal with Discrimination cases and unfair dismissal cases.
I heard Lorely Burt MP at last year's Lib Dem East of England Regional Conference speaking of vexatious and malicious applications but offered no facts and figures to support this.
As the TUC says: "The clue is in the name. Employers already have plenty of powers to make fair dismissals."
On the whole, employers do treat employees fairly already under existing law. But where employers do not treat employees fairly, then it is right for the employee to have recourse. This measure creates a problem to be solved rather than being a solution to a problem and by its very nature illiberal.
The liberal approach is to be fair to employer and employees, tilting the balance one way or another does not fulfill this aim.
Just as much as there are rights and responsibilities on both side in a employer/employee relationship under existing relationships, we must be just as careful not to create a tyranny of the employers as a tyranny of the workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)