Caerphilly County Borough Council became the first authority in Wales to officially oppose the UK Government’s Trade Union Bill.
A motion put forward by Labour councillors, including council leader Cllr Keith Reynolds, attacked the “counterproductive, vindictive, socially divisive bill”, that is “driven by Conservative ideology”, as an “attack on democracy”.
It was unanimously passed by the full council last night, September 29.
The Trade Union Bill has been likened by unions to this generation’s poll tax and will make it illegal for public sector workers to strike unless 40% of all unionised employees vote for industrial action.
For other workers to strike at least 50% must turnout for the ballot, while picketing workers would be forced to wear armbands and unions would have to give two weeks notice of action.
After the motion was passed, Cllr Reynolds said: “I’m proud that Caerphilly is the first council in Wales to serve notice of a motion opposing the Tory Government’s unprecedented and ideological attack on the largest voluntary organisations in our country.
“Unions provide essential protection for workers, especially at a time of austerity-driven attacks on their jobs, terms and conditions.”
The move was also welcomed by council employees after First Minister Carwyn Jones suggested public sector workers in Wales could be protected from the legislation.
Speaking to Caerphilly Observer last week, Mr Jones said: “Public sector employment is devolved as far as we are concerned, although the Westminster Government would disagree.
“In areas where we are responsible we will not be implementing the Trade Union Bill that attacks employment rights and trade union membership.”
Gary Enright, Branch Secretary of Unison at Caerphilly County Borough Council, welcomed the motion on behalf of his members.
He said: “The Trade Union Bill is so destructive and unnecessary. It will curb democratic rights and suppress our civil liberties.
“I’m really proud that Caerphilly’s Labour council has taken this decision today to help protect the voice of ordinary working people in the political system.
“Well done Caerphilly. Now we want other councils across Wales to do the same.”
Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis also congratulated Caerphilly councillors.
He said: “Unison commends the Labour Caerphilly councillors in passing this motion.
“The council becomes the first of, we hope, many local authorities in Wales to tell ministers there is no appetite for this bill because it rips up good employment relations that currently exist.
“People are starting to realise that the Tories are out to attack the civil rights of working people.
“Unison will continue to lobby elected representatives with a clear message, let’s work together for a better future: drop the Trade Union Bill.”
The bill will also be opposed by tens of thousands of protesters from across Britain who are due to demonstrate at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester on Sunday, October 4.
It passed its second reading in the House of Commons on September 14, despite sustained opposition from Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn and his Shadow Cabinet.
Leader of Plaid Cymru on the council, Cllr Colin Mann, said: “The Plaid Cymru group voted to support the notice of motion because the Conservative Government’s Trade Union Bill is an attack on working people.
“The proposal to curb the power of trade unions and their ability to withdraw their labour must be resisted because it strikes at the heart of democracy. Many MPs were elected on far lower percentages of the vote than trade unions will be asked to meet if this becomes law. It really is one rule for MPs and another for working people.
“David Cameron is quite happy to push his rich cronies into the unelected House of Lords while his government try their level best to prevent working people walking out in a dispute.
“Strikes are not a problem and it has been reported that the 6.5 million British people who belong to a union withdrew their labour, on average, for one day in 15 years. Hardly, an issue that deserves such draconian measures.”
A Caerphilly Labour group spokesperson said: “It’s just unfair and wrong that the Tory government wants to impose a minimum of 50% turn-out in union ballots for industrial action, when very few Tory MPs got anywhere near a 50% majority yet were elected to Parliament last May.
“Their double standards, and their attempt to restrict unions’ ability to represent their members, must be defeated.”
Business Secretary Sajid Javid, who drew up the bill, was supported by 38% of those eligible to vote in his constituency at the General Election in May.
A perfectly reasonable bill to prevent a minority of strikers holding the rest ransom. The bill should go further and say for there to be a strike over 50% of all worker eligible to strike should vote to strike for the strike to be legal.
Strikes in some sectors should be illegal regardless of turnout. Emergency services, public transport, teachers, and state-paid health professionals. If someone does not like their working conditions they should leave.
When did you join the Nazi Party?
As the article neatly points out, hardly any Tory MPs managed to get 50% of the votes, so by your reckoning they shouldn’t be sitting in the House of Commons.
All workers have the right to strike, and that should be maintained, indeed, even if the government does make it illegal for certain sectors to strike, they’d have to enforce that ruling, which would be nigh on impossible if all workers in that sector decided to strike.
Even so, the present government has been made a laughing stock, as all recent strikes that have any public profile at all have all received huge endorsements on relatively huge turnouts: the London Underground workers, and Cardiff Bus workers have both received majority endorsements for strike action based on turnouts of well over 50% in both instances.
Another group potentially to go on strike are junior doctors. I for one cannot blame them, and understand that all of them considering strike action have a really tough time with their consciences when considering taking such a step. But I would back them 100% as it serves no-one’s interests that any worker is made to work such long shifts that they are so tired that it affects their decision making abilities. I want to be treated by a doctor who is awake and alert, and not an overstressed zombie.
I suggest you go away and spend some time having a think about all the worker rights you have accrued as a result of union action. Here are a few: 8 hour day, paid holidays, health and safety at work, the weekend, unfair dismissal legislation, redundancy payments, to name just a few.
Employers have rights too, it’s not all about the workers. Maybe all workers have the right to strike but why should 100 people go out on strike just because 40 of them vote in favour meaning that 60 of them don’t want to strike. Yes some sectors should not be allowed to strike at all – Cardiff hosts the rugby World Cup, a huge event for the city and an opportunity to promote themselves to the world and the bus drivers go out on strike, how very noble and patriotic, I’d sack every last one of them.
So what about the Rugby World Cup – it’s just another overhyped capitalist jamboree that wraps itself up in faux Welshness.
I think the Cardiff Bus workers decision to strike on these two days is a bit of a masterstroke. If the union decision is democratic, then in a situation where 40 out of a hundred voted for a strike, and 60 against, then there would be no strike, it’s simple maths. If workers choose not to vote, then they only have themselves to blame.
I don’t actually give a damn about employers, most of them are scum who exploit workers.
Your curriculum vitea would make interesting reading.
I work for myself, so I doubt that my CV would be that interesting to read.
Do you employ people?
I think you could guess from the gist of what I’ve said that I don’t believe in exploiting people.
I’d also fall foul of an IWW rule that says that no one who can hire or fire people can be a union member, so the answer is no, I don’t employ anyone, and would never consider doing so.
I’d probably be a pretty awful employer anyway!
(I’ve made comments about Cardiff Bus – in my opinion the workers there would be much better off taking the company over, if they could, and running it themselves as a worker’s enterprise)
Fair enough I just wanted to see fully where you stood.
Reeled in quite nicely there by Mr P. Should be more careful.
Did you hear that Trev? Did you hear that? I’m refreshing to talk to. How do you like them onions me ole China?
See what I did there, I had a nice conversation with someone who wasn’t stroppy and then didn’t play the victim when he got some of it back.
Typical old labour no powers of introspection.
I think sjw and multicultural politics is the stuff of lunacy but this man is no blowhard so we didn’t decent into childishness.
Might want to try it Trev.
Nah` I`ll pass on that Pete boyo.
Fair enough.
What has this question got to do with the article?
It was a reasonable question based on his comments. I wanted to know where he stood and he gave me the answer that filled an obvious hole. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with his stance on this subject I just saw an issue and queried it.
As regards my own opinion on this matter, I’m not sure.
It is a massive subject that shouldn’t be taken lightly, as its in the news I’m listening to various points of views but can’t make my mind up yet.
Curtailing workers right to strike at a time when the unions are at their weakest anyway does seem a little cruel and unnecessary. Whilst preventing a workforce from having to strike because a minority say they should does seem to be productive rather than destructive.
In the union I’m a member of there can be no kind of action without a majority in favour of a quorate of the membership. Some would be critical of this, as a quorate is a set at a low, (but commonly accepted) level. Everyone is entitled to vote, and is always informed of the issues that require their participation, if they choose not to vote, then they have chosen to not be part of the process, and it would be no good complaining if they didn’t like the result.
The percentage stipulations should actually be no barrier to effective union actions, and we in the IWW would have no problems with that at all. It’s all the other stuff that the government wishes to impose that is far more worrying and disconcerting
I just checked the iww website and they are redder than a rousing rendition of the red flag.
I try not to listen to the extremes and prefer the voices from the middle ground. It’s your choice of course and I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. But any organisation that supports Bahar Mustapha and sjw politics is only ever going to be on the fringes at best.
But as for the subject at hand I think unions in general have a vital part to play in public life. I’m a fully paid up member and want my voice heard should I choose to leave self employment and return to regular employment.
The right to strike is not just a catchphrase but an actual right, that doesn’t mean it should be wielded like a club. The middle ground is very unromantic but it’s normally where most of the effective results are to be found.
Although I do find it cheeky that politicians want a higher turnout for union matters than their own. Perhaps if compulsory voting were introduced then we might see a different dynamic, but it hasn’t turned out that way in AU which has much the same issues as us along similar lines.
Yes, the IWW is a different kettle of fish to your average business union, and yes, it does have a revolutionary agenda. However, as you have probably guessed, like in many organisations, there is a diversity of opinion, and I don’t always agree with what the union does, or support it’s campaigns. Bahar Mustapha has said some things that I definitely would disagree with, (the notion that only white males can be racist is a nonsense that is likely to create more heat than light in my opinion) but the idea of safer spaces is a vital one where, for example women are concerned, as there have been some cases of some pretty disgusting behaviour towards women members by male members of the IWW.
We aren’t actually a political organisation in the accepted sense, as we regard both politics and religion as personal matters, and as something that is left at the door, as far as IWW business is concerned. But social justice is part of the wider remit of the union, just as it is with the more familiar business unions, though again our vision is more towards a society run by people, not politicians or big business.
As far as our radicalism is concerned, we are no more radical than the CNT in Spain, or the SAC in Sweden, though the IWW isn’t avowedly anarchist, unlike the CNT, or the SAC (Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden).
As regards the strike as an industrial weapon, it certainly isn’t something to be wielded like a club, as you say, as there are many other things that can be used far more effectively – think in terms of the Glasgow shipbuilders work in under the leadership of Jimmy Reid in the 70s. But again, like you say, strike action is a weapon to be kept in reserve for use when no other avenue has yielded desirable results.
I’d personally be opposed to compulsory voting, partly on principle, but mostly because it wouldn’t actually achieve anything. If anything it might make politics even less interesting, as political parties wouldn’t have to make effort at all, not even a poor one as happens at present, as they’d be certain of a vote. Far better in my opinion, that politics becomes relevant to people, as then there will be no problems. I welcome the changes brought by the election of Jeremy Corbyn, as it has invigorated political debate. I do laugh though when he, and his policies are described as extreme left-wing! There were probably Tories more left-wing than Mr Corbyn in the 70s.
I guess that I must appear to be quite radically to the left, but I’m no Marxist, Trotskyist or Leninist, (and I think you’d struggle to find many of any of those in the IWW) We are resolutely democratic, and non-hierarchical, and view those who would be leaders with extreme suspicion, so we can be all bad 🙂
Who cares about `Padi Phillips` CV in respect to this article?
Why not refrain from personal issues and comment on the article,? There are three identifyable commentators on this media who consistantly run out of steam in the debate and revert to personal attacks, it really does deminish any interesting comments they make prior to showing their true colours. it is counter productive to meaningful debate
Agreed Trefor, though I doubt my comments are interesting to anybody just my rambling opinions really.
I suspect that we’d disagree about pretty much everything Paul, but everyone’s opinion counts, as after all, it’s an opinion, not a statement or assertion of fact, truth or anything else.
Peoples opinions are always interesting to me, however much I may disagree with them, find them horrendously outrageous, as I increasingly do, but I wouldn’t want to suppress anyone’s opinion, as at the very least, if it’s out in the open it’s then subject to everyone’s scrutiny, and action can be taken where ‘opinion’ becomes incitement to acts that offend civilised values.
I probably care least of all about my CV! (Especially in contexts like this)
That, was the point I was making. it is totally imaterial to the artcle or the comment and opinions you were making. so why anyone would be interesting in what it says is beyond my understanding, but, there are commentators on this site who thrive on attacking the messenger, just at the point when their argument runs out of steam, beware of them.
A gang of three? Lol.
To deal with you point on MPs, I support compulsory voting which would leave MPs elected based on the will of the population. No MP may receive over 50% of the vote but that is where STV comes into it. However, in the case of a strike there are only two options; strike or not strike. On a mandatory, 100% turnout there will always have to be an absolute majority voting in favour – unless there was a third option of “maybe strike” introduced or something equally as silly. This result would always be fairest.
On your rhetoric, I thank Thatcher’s Employment Act 1980 for outlawing secondary action. Britain is a much better place now the power of the greedy unions and workers has been limited.
On your final point, I see you do not know history that well. All of those things you name are not the result of strikes but the result of capitalists looking for ways to boost total productivity factor. For example, the health and safety did come about following concerns for workers but the need to keep a workforce safe to boost output. 10 hour days (later 8 hours), holidays, healthcare (later NHS), and free school meals for children were not the result of strikes but the result of politicians realising there were not enough healthy men to fight was during expansion of the British Empire. The result was social reforms to produce a healthier population.
Being someone who believes in freedom, I do not support compulsory voting. I think everyone should be free to express their opinions, or not. It would also be fair to point out that voting in a general election, and voting as part of union activities are two completely different things. I can understand why people are reluctant to vote in a system that merely gives the options of which increasingly right-wing party that offers nothing to ordinary people. I am less able to understand a reluctance to vote for motions in unions, as (whilst far from perfect in business unions) they are far more democratic in structure, and all allow voting by post these days.
I know my history well enough to know that people lost their lives in the fight for the 8 hour day. (Fitted up and executed by the state) It may be that all the things I outlined were eventually legislated for, but all of them as a result of pressure from an increasingly militant workers movement. Pensions and social insurance were introduced in the UK in emulation of Germany, where unions were even stronger. I also didn’t suggest that these things came about as a result of strikes, but by union activity. Any ‘reform’ by a captialist system is always preceded by pressure from organised working people, and changes made in an attempt to appease workers.
The ruling class realising the poor state of general health amongst working people was during the period of the Boer War, hardly during a time when the empire was in expansionist mode – though it is true that some territories were added after the Great War as a result of Germany losing it’s empire.
Thatcher’s Employment Act of 1980 should be repealed as soon as possible, or merely ignored. There are no greedy workers, it is the employers and huge corporations who are greedy – let’s not forget that it is only working people who create wealth
Unfortunately I am not a liberal (small L intentional) so I take an authoritarian stance. However, your approach is confusing. You initially compare Tory MPs no elected with over 50% of the vote to strikes but now you say Parliamentary votes cannot be compared to union action. Pick a side and stick with it. On the little points of history I would point out the biggest reforms were under Peel, Gladstone, and Disraeli from 1830 – 1890 before the Boer War.
Of course there are greedy workers. Example is the London Underground drivers. Their job could be done by a 16 year old but they demand more pay than junior doctors and airline pilots. All the drivers do is click buttons and make announcements (but even then announcements are mostly automated). I propose we make every single tuber driver redundant and implement automatic trains like we see at airport. Cheaper and safer!
Compulsory voting seems to work well in AU. When I was there they were distressed that they could only muster a turnout in the 90% range. I was to embarrassed to admit 40% was a record high for us.
Well, as the Scottish Independence Referendum has shown, give people worthwhile options and make them feel like they can truly influence things then you get a genuinely engaged electorate who will turn out in huge numbers.
Making voting compulsory is a bit like making school compulsory for anyone other than teachers – make education interesting and relevant to young people’s lives and the huge ‘problem’ of truancy will largely disappear. Make voting and politics relevant to people’s everyday lives and you will see engagement with the political process increase.
That is a good argument but there is also the argument that if people want something worthwhile to vote for then they have to put in the effort in the first place and elect something else. Freedom isn’t free etc etc.
I thought this was a joke when I first read it.
So Keith Reynolds and gang have always been bog supporters of Trade Unions. Are these the same ‘Labour’ councillors that never turn up and support strikes. Are these the same ‘Labour’ councillors that refused to speak with protestors after the Chief Executive’s pay award. Are these the same ‘Labour’ councillor that have reduced the mileage rate for council employees. Are these the same ‘Labour’ councillors that watched Gordon Brown attack pensions.
This is nothing more than a PR stunt.