Anti-strike laws not ruled out ahead of union summit (UK)

[Bluewolf]

Government has not ruled out tightening industrial laws to try to prevent unions co-ordinating strikes over public service spending
Union leaders are meeting in London later to discuss their next move with a number of big public sector unions warning of possible strikes.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude says a change in the law would be a "last resort".

He urged unions to talk rather than get embroiled in a "political fight".

He told BBC News any "general strike" would be illegal. Ministers wanted a dialogue with unions but they had to recognise that public spending had to be reduced, he added.

Ahead of the meeting in London on Friday, Public and Commercial Services union general secretary Mark Serwotka said: "I hope we'll make good progress towards greater co-ordination between the unions.

"While strike action is always a last resort, it would be the result of the government's refusal to change course and its political choice to press ahead with unnecessary and hugely damaging cuts.

"It's logical that any industrial action is always more effective if more people are involved and that's what I'll be saying today."

No alternative?

Matt Wrack from the Fire Brigades Union said the government had promised front-line services would be protected, but there was no evidence of that happening.

"Public sector workers, firefighters, nurses, teachers, in fact working people in general, are being asked to pay for a crisis we didn't cause, and had no role in causing," he told the BBC.

Union leaders insist strikes remain a last resort, but among the big public sector unions there is a growing view there may be no alternative, the BBC understands.

The likely issue on which most seem prepared to take a stand - and on which they believe legally they would be able to co-ordinate their strikes - is pensions.

Some sources have predicted a campaign beginning in the spring - but that now appears less likely after the TUC negotiated an agreement with ministers to hold off implementing any changes until June.

Some smaller unions are calling for a more cautious strategy designed to build support among other groups, such as charities, who are affected by the cuts.

'Debt legacy'

Mr Maude told the BBC that public sector workers were not to blame for the UK's budget deficit but spending did need to be cut.

"We want to engage with the unions, and we are doing so, to try and get the best result for their members," he told the BBC. "We do not want a political fight with the unions and some union leaders are sounding as if that is what they want.

"We want to engage to get the right outcome for all taxpayers that is fair for future generations so they do not have to bear these terrible costs of Gordon Brown's debt legacy."

The prospect of further industrial action has led some senior Tory figures, including Mayor of London Boris Johnson, to call for changes to trade union law to ensure that strike ballots can be lawful only if 50% of union members take part.

Mr Maude downplayed this possibility but did not rule it out.

"We think the laws work pretty well as they are and any changes to the law would be very much a last resort," he said.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber has said there is "absolutely no justification for tightening up even further the already massively restrictive laws on strikes in Britain".

The issue has risen up the political agenda following a series of high-profile strikes, including walkouts by London Underground staff and binmen working for Birmingham City Council.

I will be interesting to see what the Unions will do and if we get a situation reminicent to the situation similer to the 1980's.

[Zaune]

Well, that's just fucking hoopy. I don't know why we even bother with peaceful protest in this country; the only time any government of the last thirty-odd years seems remotely interested in our opinion is when we're about to have an election.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that's just fucking hoopy. I don't know why we even bother with peaceful protest in this country; the only time any government of the last thirty-odd years seems remotely interested in our opinion is when we're about to have an election.

Saying "why should we bother with peaceful protest" seems to me a very small step away from saying "break out the guns." I sincerely hope that wasn't your intention, because things really haven't reached that point yet and I'd rather not see people dying in the streets.

Of course, you could just be arguing for surrender and apathy, but that's hardly good either.

[Zaune]

Saying "why should we bother with peaceful protest" seems to me a very small step away from saying "break out the guns." I sincerely hope that wasn't your intention, because things really haven't reached that point yet and I'd rather not see people dying in the streets.

Of course, you could just be arguing for surrender and apathy, but that's hardly good either.

I don't especially want to see us go down the armed insurrection route either, if only because it wouldn't have have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding without the backing of a significant percentage of the armed forces. But neither can I summon the enthusiasm for turning out to march across London en masse and standing around in all weathers holding banners when all the response it garners from our allegedly democratic government is a few patronising soundbites.

I don't know what we should be doing, frankly. All I know is that what we're doing now isn't working.

[TC27]

Saying "why should we bother with peaceful protest" seems to me a very small step away from saying "break out the guns." I sincerely hope that wasn't your intention, because things really haven't reached that point yet and I'd rather not see people dying in the streets.

Of course, you could just be arguing for surrender and apathy, but that's hardly good either.

I don't especially want to see us go down the armed insurrection route either, if only because it wouldn't have have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding without the backing of a significant percentage of the armed forces. But neither can I summon the enthusiasm for turning out to march across London en masse and standing around in all weathers holding banners when all the response it garners from our allegedly democratic government is a few patronising soundbites.

I don't know what we should be doing, frankly. All I know is that what we're doing now isn't working.

Well I am actually relieved that the goverment does not instantly change its policies based on protest marches.

We are in for a really tough 3-4 years (relatively) forced upon us by the relentless pressure of appalling public finances - I imagine there will be lots of protests.

[K. A. Pital]

Well I am actually relieved that the goverment does not instantly change its policies based on protest marches.

Next step - disband these protestors with sticks and pumpjets! That'll teach 'em.

We are in for a really tough 3-4 years (relatively) forced upon us by the relentless pressure of appalling public finances - I imagine there will be lots of protests.

I love these "forced on us by the relentless blah blah blah" words. It's as if (a) the current crisis was nobody's fault (b) the responsible have already bore the full brunt of responsibility (c) all the nation must unite in order to save the profits of our beloved capitalists, and damn those pesky unions for shooting the process of curtailing social support in the foot.

Seriously, why is it that whenever crisis strikes, it is the workers who have to "bear with it" and "have tough 3-4 years" at the same time as there's the most expensive house ever built in London, and there's a stream of clients to buy the property - it doesn't seem like the rich guys are having any trouble.

[TC27]

I take it all back its not forced on us at all - spending more than we receive in taxation indefinately will have no catastrophic consequences that would lead to even worse IMF imposed cuts in public spending further down the road.

Sorry....

[Zaune]

I take it all back its not forced on us at all - spending more than we receive in taxation indefinately will have no catastrophic consequences that would lead to even worse IMF imposed cuts in public spending further down the road.

Sorry....

And the solution to this is to spend no more money than the richest 10% of the country deign to allot us peons out of nobless obligay, is it?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I take it all back its not forced on us at all - spending more than we receive in taxation indefinately will have no catastrophic consequences that would lead to even worse IMF imposed cuts in public spending further down the road.

Sorry....

YOu can start by taxing the rich the way it ought to be instead of cozying up to them and get down to proper regulation instead of taking out kid gloves.

You can also start by spending money to diversify the economy because unless you do so, the UK will simply face similar problems again in the future. RElying on banking is simply not an option.

[Bluewolf]

Many people are more annoyed about WHERE and HOW it's being cuts. Unfortunately cuts need to be made but it's usually the above parameters that are in debate. For example I knew some people were outraged when the military got cut as "low" (to them) as it did or when we added more money to foreign aid. This frustration is compounded by the fact that bankers are STILL getting bonuses and actually said "Well watch us" when the government raised issue with it. The banks have gotten off lightly with at most, a slap on the wrist and a small ineffective lecture.

On top of that you have the whole VAT tax. VAT is regressive, hits the poorest hardest despite it's exceptions. Higher you up the income ladder though, the less of a trouble it is. Not that taxes need to be a trouble but what I am trying to say is that the poor are hit hardest. Though Income tax is a lot more politically infeasible, it would yield more and let the poorest manage a more effectively. Hey, even buissnesses may be happier about not having a 20% VAT rate.

Finally there is the issue that the government is utterly ravaging benefits. It has been said that they are damaging Disability Benefit so much that it is almost in breach of human rights. They are making it harder for someone who has been made redundant, young people or people who are looking to get on the job ladder to do anything. All while they damage the social surport network that these people make use of. You can most likely see the problem with this.

Oh and as an aside you have to admit the power of Unions for good or for bad has been drained since the Thatcher years. I am not declaring the previous arrangements were perfect but stripping unions of more and more of their power so that government can go unchallenged in it's policy feels wrong.

On and Stas does have a good point. I hate to use this overdone shitty joke but in the capitalist west, Banks rob you.

[TC27]

Well wankers in the City lording it over the rest of us does not go down any better with me than anyone else I assure you guys but it would be the appalling state of the UK treasury cannot entirely be blamed upon them and it is a dangerous fiction to indulge in this.

Likewise moaning about the rich will get us nowhere - by all means lets tighten tax loopholes and chase down those offshore accounts but lets not let an obsession with class warfare distract us from the problem.

Fact is the money used to bail out the banks will probaly be returned to the treasury with some interest - the problem with have is our current spending is maintained only through the good will of our creditors. I am all for as generous social welfare systems as we can afford but we can substain the current level.

[Zaune]

Well wankers in the City lording it over the rest of us does not go down any better with me than anyone else I assure you guys but it would be the appalling state of the UK treasury cannot entirely be blamed upon them and it is a dangerous fiction to indulge in this.

Likewise moaning about the rich will get us nowhere - by all means lets tighten tax loopholes and chase down those offshore accounts but lets not let an obsession with class warfare distract us from the problem.

Fact is the money used to bail out the banks will probaly be returned to the treasury with some interest - the problem with have is our current spending is maintained only through the good will of our creditors. I am all for as generous social welfare systems as we can afford but we can substain the current level.

Who's perpetrating class warfare here, the people protesting the fact that our social safety net is being sold for scrap to pay for the incompetence of several successive governments, or the glorified professional gamblers lobbying for this so they can have more money to spend on hookers and blow?
And if we don't sustain the current level then people are going to die. It's as simple as that.

[Hillary]

Well wankers in the City lording it over the rest of us does not go down any better with me than anyone else I assure you guys but it would be the appalling state of the UK treasury cannot entirely be blamed upon them and it is a dangerous fiction to indulge in this.

Well, not entirely - but they do bear a large portion of the blame. Had they not been twisting the government's arm for years in order to get the financial services safeguards downgraded, we wouldn't be in anywhere near as bad a state. Of course, the government should have said no, but the bankers' friends in the media would have had a field day had they not budged.

Likewise moaning about the rich will get us nowhere - by all means lets tighten tax loopholes and chase down those offshore accounts but lets not let an obsession with class warfare distract us from the problem.

What bollocks. Pointing out that measures to ensure that the rich cough up their share would yield more money than clamping down on benefit fraud is class warfare?

Fact is the money used to bail out the banks will probaly be returned to the treasury with some interest

Wow - let's have some back up for that claim.

- the problem with have is our current spending is maintained only through the good will of our creditors. I am all for as generous social welfare systems as we can afford but we can substain the current level.

If we managed to get the likes of Philip Green, the Barclay Brothers and Lord Rothermere to pay tax on their earnings, we would not have to cut so hard. If we updated our tax system so that the wealthier pay a more equitable amount of tax, we would not have to cut so hard.

[TC27]

Well, not entirely - but they do bear a large portion of the blame. Had they not been twisting the government's arm for years in order to get the financial services safeguards downgraded, we wouldn't be in anywhere near as bad a state. Of course, the government should have said no, but the bankers' friends in the media would have had a field day had they not budged.

This may be a fair point but given the globalised nature of finance the Uk goverment cannot be necessarily blamed for the failures in regulation or for wanting to make London a competitive place for finance to base itself. The UK treasury was like most individuals living beyond its means before the 'credit crunch' actually going into structural deficit in 2007 with the economy (and therefore goverment spending) based on a unsubstantial credit boom.

What bollocks. Pointing out that measures to ensure that the rich cough up their share would yield more money than clamping down on benefit fraud is class warfare?

Yes because unfortunately its going to be impossible to get enough money out of the 'rich' to mean that we wont also have to clamp down on benefit fraud and make cuts in public spending. Whenever I hear this arguement it strikes me as a false one used by people who are playing the class politics card and are simply not living in the real world. I am all for a progressive tax system and clamping down on tax avoidance but its not a golden bullet.

Wow - let's have some back up for that claim.

Read up on the actual detail of the various bailouts.

If we managed to get the likes of Philip Green, the Barclay Brothers and Lord Rothermere to pay tax on their earnings, we would not have to cut so hard. If we updated our tax system so that the wealthier pay a more equitable amount of tax, we would not have to cut so hard.

Again this is good rabble rousing stuff but even doing this alone is not enough and isnt going to stop us having to make cuts in spending.

[K. A. Pital]

This may be a fair point but given the globalised nature of finance the Uk goverment cannot be necessarily blamed for the failures in regulation or for wanting to make London a competitive place for finance to base itself. The UK treasury was like most individuals living beyond its means before the 'credit crunch' actually going into structural deficit in 2007 with the economy (and therefore goverment spending) based on a unsubstantial credit boom.

Why? Wanting to make London attractive for the super-rich at the future expense of the entire nation and the entire nation's middle or working class, call it how you like, counts as a malevolent act. It could've been neglient malevolence, but since when neglience was an excuse?

Yes because unfortunately its going to be impossible to get enough money out of the 'rich' to mean that we wont also have to clamp down on benefit fraud and make cuts in public spending. Whenever I hear this arguement it strikes me as a false one used by people who are playing the class politics card and are simply not living in the real world. I am all for a progressive tax system and clamping down on tax avoidance but its not a golden bullet.

This is not so in the US - I've seen a budget calculator where by simply cutting down military expenses and instituting progressive taxation you could cover the horrific deficit in what, 4 years? And have no deficit by 2020. I doubt the UK is much different.

Read up on the actual detail of the various bailouts.

And how much of that money was returned? Because you see, as it looks now the borrowing is in fact the rich borrowing from the workers - "we destroy your social guarantees - and then we'll have our profits back and from THERE ON we will pay out/cover deficit/return bailouts". A hideous, monstrous construct where the workers are being coerced into giving in to the rich so that the rich then MAYBE return it to the government (except the destroyed social guarantees will NOT be back, they'll lost forever).

Again this is good rabble rousing stuff but even doing this alone is not enough and isnt going to stop us having to make cuts in spending.

Rabble rousing? Perhaps you have to cut back on two Queen Elizabeth class carriers - after all, the British Empire is dead and the people can't eat carriers. Unless Britain is planning to take the Suez canal back from Egypt in a blatant agression like it tried before, duh. And then start taxing the rich. And then maybe there'll be no "deficit" to speak about. Oops. That's not what the rich want you to hear, that's not what the government wants you to hear. You gotta be patriotic, support the war machine, support the bailouts, support the destruction of welfare.

[Bluewolf]

Stas Bush, I would really enjoy you or anyone else giving a good go at solving the UK debt crisis in some sort of thread. More detail the better. Of course you are a man who seems stretched for time last time I checked but I am really curious as to how you'd do it in detail.

[Teebs]

This is not so in the US - I've seen a budget calculator where by simply cutting down military expenses and instituting progressive taxation you could cover the horrific deficit in what, 4 years? And have no deficit by 2020. I doubt the UK is much different.

I'm not quite sure why you think that just because something would work in the US it would also work in the UK. UK income tax is considerably more progressive than the US' and we spend only 2.4% of our GDP on defence compared to 4% in the US.

[K. A. Pital]

What about corporate tax?

[Big Orange]

I'm not enthusiatic about the malignant cuts to the UK public services and erosion of welfare security by Torytard chinless wonders led by Commander Data, while their megacorp friends still have billions to blow on several boats, islands, and planes.

UK born people trying to build a reasonable career and standard of living are facing an uphill battle in both the public and private sector when large companies like Pfizer can axe thousands of decent jobs at will and only 3% of jobs created last year were full time. British military spending and contracting sounds like a corrupt, badly organized sham, the result of a pretentious UK military industrial complex trying to punch above its own weight, when it was already becoming a pathetic joke back in November 6th 1956.

But I take comfort when the main Torytards, reading from the same discredited Neo-Liberal Capitalist play book over and over and over again, have alienated a lot of conservative British people and Tory voters by attempting to sell off UK public forests for a packet of bollocks. Who do they think they are, Andrew Ryan?

[Starglider]

This may be a fair point but given the globalised nature of finance the Uk goverment cannot be necessarily blamed for the failures in regulation or for wanting to make London a competitive place for finance to base itself

Why? Wanting to make London attractive for the super-rich at the future expense of the entire nation and the entire nation's middle or working class,

The London financial industry provides approximately two million jobs with the highest average salary of any industry sector. At any financial institution there are thousands of support staff to every hundred traders or ten executives/fund managers. It is in fact one of the few major supporting pillars for 'middle class' income.

Because you see, as it looks now the borrowing is in fact the rich borrowing from the workers - "we destroy your social guarantees - and then we'll have our profits back and from THERE ON we will pay out/cover deficit/return bailouts".

The problem is that benefit reductions are not being coupled to job creation; there is absolutely no effort being put into incentivising capital into creation and expansion of productive industry, very much the opposite in fact. Benefit reductions themselves are necessary and would be desireable if there was a viable alternative. Of course a lot of the impact on benefits and front line services is simply due to the fact that it is effectively impossible to fire the legions of worthless civil service beurecrats; they have decades of practice in deflecting every attempt to cut their salaries or jobs onto low-level staff and external spending.

Perhaps you have to cut back on two Queen Elizabeth class carriers - after all, the British Empire is dead and the people can't eat carriers.

Yes, we are all very familiar with your argument that only the USSR Russia should be allowed to have any sort of military, everyone else should just disarm and prostrate themselves etc etc

Tory voters by attempting to sell off UK public forests for a packet of bollocks.

Are you serious? The article you linked to states the exact opposite; it describes how Labour was selling off forests outright to fund their insane civil service beurecracy expansions, while the Conservatives want to end that policy and replaced it with leases and limited lumber rights only.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Yes, we are all very familiar with your argument that only the USSR Russia should be allowed to have any sort of military, everyone else should just disarm and prostrate themselves etc etc

Take a hint: The UK isn't even a major factor in international discussions these days in Asia and much of the rest of the world outside Europe. Having carriers is merely an excuse for the UK political elite to tag along for expensive US military adventures. Perhaps cutting back on such nonsense would save you fellas lots of money.

[Starglider]

Take a hint: The UK isn't even a major factor in international discussions these days in Asia and much of the rest of the world outside Europe.

So? Why would you expect it to be? Are you saying that France, Brazil and Italy should not operate aircraft carriers either, because they aren't 'a major factor in international discussions in Asia'? All these countries have aircraft carriers for the same reason; power projection in defence of vital interests, which has nothing to do with whatever superpower posturing you have your knickers in a twist about.

[K. A. Pital]

The London financial industry provides approximately two million jobs with the highest average salary of any industry sector. At any financial institution there are thousands of support staff to every hundred traders or ten executives/fund managers. It is in fact one of the few major supporting pillars for 'middle class' income.

I hardly see how this changes the equation. It created lots of bubble jobs for wealthy finance personnel. Which... got cut down during the banking crisis. As for finance being 'pillar' of the economy, sure, continue that way. Industrial unravelling in the UK is already going full-steam ahead, from what I gathered. We'll see if the myth of "post-industrial economy" will live up to reality.

The problem is that benefit reductions are not being coupled to job creation; there is absolutely no effort being put into incentivising capital into creation and expansion of productive industry, very much the opposite in fact.

Cutting on social spending is not going to remedy the problem. What it will do, however, is alienate the people of the lower classes: students, low-wage workers, etc. You want them alienated and someone else placated? Fine. Just don't pretend it isn't so.

Yes, we are all very familiar with your argument that only the USSR Russia should be allowed to have any sort of military, everyone else should just disarm and prostrate themselves etc etc

Like me saying I do not want the Russian oligarchy to be better armed?

[Simon_Jester]

I do think it's legitimate for people both in and outside the US to ask the question "does Britain need those carriers?" The economic situation is bad enough that daring to ask the question shouldn't be met with righteous indignation.

But I don't think it follows that Britain does not have a right to build carriers if it chooses to do so. "Don't be foolish, Britain isn't a superpower, why should it have carriers?" strikes me as an unreasonable (and circular) argument. Particularly if it wants to have any degree of military and political independence from the US, Britain needs to maintain a military capable of putting up at least something in the way of a fight on behalf of distant allies or regional conflicts. Otherwise, the British have no choice but to subordinate themselves to the Americans, because only the Americans will be able and willing to exercise force on their behalf.

If we're looking for a substantial power bloc to reassemble itself in Europe to counterbalance or at least limit US influence, someone has to fund a baseline military to provide this bloc with a bit of striking power. The British are a fairly logical candidate to do (part of) that.

But even so, this is a very expensive thing for them to do, and the question of whether it's worth it in terms of the eternal "guns or butter" debate does need to be asked.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Take a hint: The UK isn't even a major factor in international discussions these days in Asia and much of the rest of the world outside Europe.

So? Why would you expect it to be? Are you saying that France, Brazil and Italy should not operate aircraft carriers either, because they aren't 'a major factor in international discussions in Asia'? All these countries have aircraft carriers for the same reason; power projection in defence of vital interests, which has nothing to do with whatever superpower posturing you have your knickers in a twist about.

You people are in denial. You are no longer in any position to do serious power projection. France? Please. They can barely service their current carrier and they have a far more diverse and stable economy than the UK's. Brazil? Theirs are hunking old Brit crap. Italy? Those are largely used as helicopter carriers. They can hardly do any serious power projection. Honestly, face it. The days of the British empire were over for 5 damn decades and the UK economy hasn't been adapting well enough.

I do think it's legitimate for people both in and outside the US to ask the question "does Britain need those carriers?" The economic situation is bad enough that daring to ask the question shouldn't be met with righteous indignation.

But I don't think it follows that Britain does not have a right to build carriers if it chooses to do so. "Don't be foolish, Britain isn't a superpower, why should it have carriers?" strikes me as an unreasonable (and circular) argument. Particularly if it wants to have any degree of military and political independence from the US, Britain needs to maintain a military capable of putting up at least something in the way of a fight on behalf of distant allies or regional conflicts. Otherwise, the British have no choice but to subordinate themselves to the Americans, because only the Americans will be able and willing to exercise force on their behalf.

If we're looking for a substantial power bloc to reassemble itself in Europe to counterbalance or at least limit US influence, someone has to fund a baseline military to provide this bloc with a bit of striking power. The British are a fairly logical candidate to do (part of) that.

But even so, this is a very expensive thing for them to do, and the question of whether it's worth it in terms of the eternal "guns or butter" debate does need to be asked.

They already surbordinated themselves to the Americans by tagging along for Iraq and Afghanistan and many other military operations. Honestly, the UK hasn't gotten around to figure their place in Europe and America because they are torn between the Eurocentrists and the steadfastly "all things British". They haven't figured that out for the last few decades and I doubt tehy will any time soon barring a seismic change in leadership.