Richard Balfe is a Conservative peer and President of the British Airline Pilots Association. He served as Conservative envoy to the trades unions under David Cameron.
Today the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill returns to the House of Commons for its final stages.
Last month, myself and other peers moved amendments against the legislation in the House of Lords. It’s time for my Conservative colleagues in the Commons to now see sense on this unnecessary and unworkable Bill, support these amendments – or even better jettison this counterproductive Bill altogether. Here’s why.
If passed unamended, the Bill would mean that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work through work notices – and sacked if they don’t comply.
Put simply, this is a recipe for chaos and confusion. And it won’t work.
Let’s take a sector I know well, as honorary president of the pilots Union: aviation.
According to this Bill, the Minister for Transport would need to identify a pilot and order them, a week before the plane takes off, to fly to Washington.
If you live in the real world of aviation, you will know that a plane is not cleared for take-off until the pilot certifies that it should take off, at the most two hours before it leaves and after the pilot has boarded the aircraft.
There are various considerations that need to be made in order for this to happen, such as the weather and the level of staffing is correct. Unless you let professionals make a decision, you are just running yourself into trouble.
The idea of naming people in a work notice could come only from the desk of someone who has never had to do it. This requirement, above everything else, demonstrates the weakness and stupidity of the Bill.
And the problems do not end there. As well as being unworkable, the Government interfering to force employers to issue work notices could well poison industrial relations. Ministers must think again: this Bill would not only be bad for the relationship between workers and employers, but the relationship between government and employers too.
The Government’s own impact assessment for the transport strikes bill, which was introduced as the initial legislation, agrees, suggesting the legislation resulting in a “negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties.” It also says minimum service levels could increase the frequency of disputes, and “ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term”.
And although I am not usually one for quoting Jacob Rees-Mogg, he was absolutely right when he said – in reference to this legislation – that “skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.”
Such clauses allow ministers to circumvent normal parliamentary procedures and rewrite whole swathes of legislation, ducking normal scrutiny. That’s not right.
It’s time for Conservative MPs to ask themselves whether they would be happy if a Labour government made extensive use of these fundamentally undemocratic instruments. The answer, I think, would be a resounding no.
Ordinary members of trade unions have worked hard to help the country become the prosperous country that it is. The Prime Minister would do well to remember that – as well as remember the 1.5 million trade unionists who voted for the Conservative Party at the last election.
The Party needs to update its vision of what a modern trades union is about. The movement has been increasingly attracting graduates and higher paid workers; the political views of most union leaders are generally ignored by the ordinary member.
I have been honorary president of two unions, the British Dietetic Association and BALPA. Both have a membership in which almost all members have degrees, and middle-class aspirations and lifestyles.
People do not join unions to go on strike, but for the other benefits that go with membership. Let me give a couple of personal examples.
I had a minor dispute with the Bursar of my sons private school. the union solicitor gave me advice about my rights, then drafted a letter, on receipt of which the Bursar backed down. Not only did the solicitor charge me nothing, but saved me a few hundred pounds. It was called a member benefit.
When I was driving I had a nice (and expensive) Mercedes; it was often parked outside Conservative functions. The union had an agreement with a top insurer and the reduction in premiums was actually more than my membership dues!
Nor are benefits confined to such perks. I never needed such help, but if you are a teacher or in the public service, and a parent or someone else complains about you it is your trades union not your employer who will arrange your defence and advise on the law; so too if you are victimised at work, or have other problems.
The work of the average union consists of avoiding industrial action, not promoting it. During the current strikes on the railways, the most common complaint I have heard from officials concerns the difficulty in persuading members to walk out and lose pay. That is why most strikes are just for a day at a time.
We need to get real about trades unionists and see them for what they are: hard-working, aspirational people who want the best for their families, society, and their country. We need to substitute social partnership for social strife – and the Conservatives need a more realistic view.
Most workers got nothing from the last Labour government, and they do not regard the present Labour Party – with its flip-flop promises – as in the least to be trusted. We should be capitalising on the basic conservative instincts of the average trades unionist, and making them feel safe with our party.
There are far more important challenges facing Britain today than passing an unworkable Bill. There is simply no good reason for this legislation.
Richard Balfe is a Conservative peer and President of the British Airline Pilots Association. He served as Conservative envoy to the trades unions under David Cameron.
Today the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill returns to the House of Commons for its final stages.
Last month, myself and other peers moved amendments against the legislation in the House of Lords. It’s time for my Conservative colleagues in the Commons to now see sense on this unnecessary and unworkable Bill, support these amendments – or even better jettison this counterproductive Bill altogether. Here’s why.
If passed unamended, the Bill would mean that when workers lawfully vote to strike in health, education, fire, transport, border security and nuclear decommissioning, they could be forced to attend work through work notices – and sacked if they don’t comply.
Put simply, this is a recipe for chaos and confusion. And it won’t work.
Let’s take a sector I know well, as honorary president of the pilots Union: aviation.
According to this Bill, the Minister for Transport would need to identify a pilot and order them, a week before the plane takes off, to fly to Washington.
If you live in the real world of aviation, you will know that a plane is not cleared for take-off until the pilot certifies that it should take off, at the most two hours before it leaves and after the pilot has boarded the aircraft.
There are various considerations that need to be made in order for this to happen, such as the weather and the level of staffing is correct. Unless you let professionals make a decision, you are just running yourself into trouble.
The idea of naming people in a work notice could come only from the desk of someone who has never had to do it. This requirement, above everything else, demonstrates the weakness and stupidity of the Bill.
And the problems do not end there. As well as being unworkable, the Government interfering to force employers to issue work notices could well poison industrial relations. Ministers must think again: this Bill would not only be bad for the relationship between workers and employers, but the relationship between government and employers too.
The Government’s own impact assessment for the transport strikes bill, which was introduced as the initial legislation, agrees, suggesting the legislation resulting in a “negative impact on industrial relations, which could have detrimental impacts for all parties.” It also says minimum service levels could increase the frequency of disputes, and “ultimately result in more adverse impacts in the long term”.
And although I am not usually one for quoting Jacob Rees-Mogg, he was absolutely right when he said – in reference to this legislation – that “skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses are bad parliamentary and constitutional practice.”
Such clauses allow ministers to circumvent normal parliamentary procedures and rewrite whole swathes of legislation, ducking normal scrutiny. That’s not right.
It’s time for Conservative MPs to ask themselves whether they would be happy if a Labour government made extensive use of these fundamentally undemocratic instruments. The answer, I think, would be a resounding no.
Ordinary members of trade unions have worked hard to help the country become the prosperous country that it is. The Prime Minister would do well to remember that – as well as remember the 1.5 million trade unionists who voted for the Conservative Party at the last election.
The Party needs to update its vision of what a modern trades union is about. The movement has been increasingly attracting graduates and higher paid workers; the political views of most union leaders are generally ignored by the ordinary member.
I have been honorary president of two unions, the British Dietetic Association and BALPA. Both have a membership in which almost all members have degrees, and middle-class aspirations and lifestyles.
People do not join unions to go on strike, but for the other benefits that go with membership. Let me give a couple of personal examples.
I had a minor dispute with the Bursar of my sons private school. the union solicitor gave me advice about my rights, then drafted a letter, on receipt of which the Bursar backed down. Not only did the solicitor charge me nothing, but saved me a few hundred pounds. It was called a member benefit.
When I was driving I had a nice (and expensive) Mercedes; it was often parked outside Conservative functions. The union had an agreement with a top insurer and the reduction in premiums was actually more than my membership dues!
Nor are benefits confined to such perks. I never needed such help, but if you are a teacher or in the public service, and a parent or someone else complains about you it is your trades union not your employer who will arrange your defence and advise on the law; so too if you are victimised at work, or have other problems.
The work of the average union consists of avoiding industrial action, not promoting it. During the current strikes on the railways, the most common complaint I have heard from officials concerns the difficulty in persuading members to walk out and lose pay. That is why most strikes are just for a day at a time.
We need to get real about trades unionists and see them for what they are: hard-working, aspirational people who want the best for their families, society, and their country. We need to substitute social partnership for social strife – and the Conservatives need a more realistic view.
Most workers got nothing from the last Labour government, and they do not regard the present Labour Party – with its flip-flop promises – as in the least to be trusted. We should be capitalising on the basic conservative instincts of the average trades unionist, and making them feel safe with our party.
There are far more important challenges facing Britain today than passing an unworkable Bill. There is simply no good reason for this legislation.