Trade Union Bill a solution in search of a problem

TIMES change but some political battles remain the same. The exchanges over the arrival of the Trade Union Bill in the Commons yesterday would have sounded familiar 30 and even 40 years ago. Where the right to strike is concerned, it seems, positions remain entrenched.

In some senses, this is odd. Labour have undergone soul-searching over their relationship with the unions. Several of those springing to the defence of organised workers would happily loosen, if not sever, the link. Now they are indignant. Is this because the bill is designed to hinder strikers, or because it poses a direct threat to party funding?

The Conservatives need take no satisfaction in either case. The question they face is simple: where is the crisis? As the Office for National Statistics observed in a February: “Working days lost [due to strikes] are at historically low levels.”There were 788,000 lost due to industrial action last year, but in the tumultuous 1970s the annual average was 13 million.

There is no industrial relations problem. In 2013, there were 114 stoppages, 64 in the private sector. Even amid the economic boom of the 1990s, Britain experienced an average of 266 strikes annually. Days lost last year stood comparison with a 1980s average of 1,040,300. David Cameron’s bill is a solution in search of a problem.

Nevertheless, the insistence that 50 per cent of those eligible must participate in a strike ballot is reasonable. A union that fails to involve half of the workforce cannot claim credibility for a stoppage. But the idea that 40 per cent of those voting must approve a strike is absurd. Few governments, least of all this one, pass that test when seeking election. A simple majority is good enough.

The bill comes close to a bid to ban strikes in health, education, firefighting, transport, border security and the energy sector without having the courage to say so. Perhaps Mr Cameron hankers for confrontation, the better to win favour with harassed commuters or embattled parents. As austerity and benefits cuts add to wage pressures, he could regret such an impulse.

Where is the problem, these days, with intimidatory picketing? Why legislate to encourage strike-breaking agency workers? What excuse is there for £20,000 fines for breaches of “reporting rules”? If Britain was beset by violent unrest, there might be arguments for these measures. There is no unrest, and no excuse for circumscribing basic rights.

Into this mix is thrown a gratuitous imposition. The requirement that all unions, not just those affiliated to Labour, must ask each member whether they wish to pay the political levy and then repeat the question every five years, is straightforward party politics. If the bill becomes law, Labour stands to lose millions of pounds thanks to a government that refused to accept limits on individual donations from the superrich. Party funding reform is long overdue. It cannot be applied selectively in a blatantly self-interested attempt to impoverish opponents. Mr Cameron is treading a very thin line.