A discussion article by a Free Our Unions supporter.
The 22 May demo against the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill symbolised the problem with the labour movement’s response to the Bill and to anti-union laws more broadly.
It’s good that the TUC called a demonstration on the day the Commons voted on the House of Lords amendments to the Bill (all of which were defeated – the Bill now returns to the Lords, who may however decide not to push back again). It was good to join comrades from various unions and organisations in Parliament Square and talk afterwards. It’s not good that there were, at a real push, only a thousand people there. Not good: but not entirely surprising.
I would have expected a somewhat bigger turnout – but if you do nothing serious to campaign against a law for months, you might find a demo called at short notice right at the end doesn’t mobilise people very effectively.
The RMT, to its credit, called a couple of demonstrations earlier in the year, but on a Monday night and also only about a thousand. The issue of the right to strike was raised on the big 1 February strike day, but rather mutedly. Since then, as far as I can see, pretty much nothing until 22 May. No national demonstration, no days of action with local protests, no campaign of meetings even.
The FBU called, quite late on, for the TUC to call a national demo against the Minimum Service Levels law, and a special TUC Congress to discuss campaigning. Given it was clear the TUC wasn’t going to do those things, the question arose of what the FBU itself would do to make them happen. Then quickly the 22 May vote came.
Some other unions, for instance the RMT, have had formal policy in favour of a national demo for much longer, but done nothing about it.
Free Our Unions, which organised the first on the streets protest against the Minimum Service Levels thread, with Earth Strike, back in October, has campaigned consistently for a much more serious campaign including a real national demo.
What now? Some speakers on 22 May did talk about campaigning after the bill passes, but there very little in the way of practical proposals, even in broad outline.
Meanwhile speakers did call for a Labour government to repeal the MSL law – but failed to mention the 2016 Trade Union Act, which has created such problems for national strikes in the public sector, let alone the older anti-union laws. Every time the Tories introduce a new attack, the debate moves further to the right.
Here are some proposals for discussion in the labour movement:
1. Ideally, given the Bill has not yet passed, unions should call a proper national demonstration as soon as possible. Given the timescale, however, this will become increasingly difficult to argue. However we absolutely should argue for the FBU and as many other unions and union organisations as possible to call a national demonstration in the autumn. I mean a real national demonstration, on a Saturday, attempting to mobilise at least many thousands. By all means emphasise the Minimum Service law, but the central demand should be repeal of all anti-union laws. This should be followed by a national day or week of action, with local protests and activities.
2. The FBU and other organisations should organise a special labour movement conference to discuss campaigning on this issue, including what calls for defiance mean in practice.
3. We also need an organised labour movement initiative to demand, assert as clear movement policy and seek to win a commitment from the Labour Party to repeal all the anti-union laws.
With anti-union laws now piled up high, and an incoming Labour government very possibly likely to equivocate on repealing even the most recent ones, discussion about how we take forward this fight is urgent.
Online meeting, 7pm, Thursday 8 June: where next in the fight against anti-strike laws?
Log in via Zoom here
Meeting ID: 835 3823 9276
Passcode: 683428
Register on Eventbrite here
The Tories’ Minimum Service Levels Bill has its next Parliamentary reading on 22 May. The TUC has rightly called an emergency protest outside Parliament for 6:30pm that evening.
While the Bill could spend more time ping-ponging between the Commons and the Lords, it is also possible that it could become law within weeks or months. We need opportunities to discuss the next steps in the fight – not only against this bill, but against all anti-union laws.
Free Our Unions has called an open discussion and planning meeting for 7pm on Thursday 8 June. Speakers will include Labour MP Nadia Whittome, but the majority of time will be set aside for discussion.
Amongst other issues, we hope to discuss how we can organise across the movement to act on the Fire Brigades Union’s call for a “mass campaign of non-compliance” with the law, and what effective defiance might look like.
Free Our Unions has invited the Institute of Employment Rights and the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom to co-sponsor the meeting and contribute to the discussion.
Please join us at 7pm on 8 June.
Log in via Zoom here.
Meeting ID: 835 3823 9276
Passcode: 683428
TUC calls emergency protest at Parliament- 6pm, 22 May
The TUC has called an emergency protest in Parliament Square at 6pm on Monday 22 May, when the Minimum Service Levels Bill is due for its next, and possibly final, Parliamentary reading and debate.
Get down with your union banners! Free Our Unions will be distributing our latest briefing, and we’re planning a discussion/organising meeting to discuss next steps in the fight.
New Free Our Unions briefing
We’ve produced a new campaign briefing for activists to help them push inside their unions for a national demonstration against anti-strike laws. The briefing includes a model motion for union branches, the recent policy passed by the Fire Brigades Union Executive Committee calling for a national demonstration and defiance of the laws, and a discussion article on what defiance could mean in practise.
Download the briefing as a PDF below. For printed copies for distribution in your workplace/union branch, email us at freeourunions@gmail.com.
Printer-ready version:
House of Lords amends anti-strike bill – but no room for complacency!
The House of Lords has approved amendments to the Tories’ Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill which would blunt some if its worst effects.
The Lords voted for an amendment that extends protection from dismissal to striking workers who are named in a minimum service complement and refuse to work: “Failure to comply with a work notice shall not be regarded as a breach of the contract of employment of any person identified in the work notice, or constitute grounds for dismissal or any other detriment.”
The Lords also voted to exempt Scotland and Wales from the bill’s measures, meaning employers and government in those countries will not have to set minimum service levels, allowing all-out strikes to take place. It also voted to require a consultation on the bill’s impact on the right to strike.
These are positive developments, but they should not be hailed as decisive “victories”. There is no room for complacency; the bill still has to go back to the Commons, where the amendments will be discussed and voted on. And even if they are incorporated into the final version of the bill, it remains an enormous attack on workers’ ability to strike effectively.
We still need assertive political campaigning against the bill, including a national demonstration, and a serious discussion about defiance of the law if it is passed.
Court rules against nurses’ strike
The final day (2 May) of a planned strike by nurses’ union the RCN has been cancelled, after the government took the union to court to block the strike. The judge agreed with the government’s assertion that the RCN’s industrial action ballot mandate expired at 23:59 on 1 May, making the final day of the strike unlawful.
The RCN held a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice, where protesters held placards including one reading “who takes their heroes to court?”
RCN leader Pat Cullen said: “The full weight of government gave ministers this victory over nursing staff. It is the darkest day of this dispute so far – the government taking its own nurses through the courts in bitterness at their simple expectation of a better pay deal. Nursing staff will be angered but not crushed by today’s interim order. It may even make them more determined to vote in next month’s reballot for a further six months of action.”
The law that the government’s case relied on, which stipulates that industrial action mandates expire and must be renewed on a six-monthly basis, is part of a complex network of bureaucratic and administrative restrictions placed on unions designed to slow down and obstruct strikes.
Other laws include the requirement for ballots to be conducted by individual postal ballot, rather than electronically or by votes in workplace meetings; minimum notice periods prior to balloting and taking action; and restrictions on the issues over which unions can strike, including a prohibition on striking in support of other workers.
Although it is understandable that Cullen focused on the RCN’s re-ballot in her response, we also need direct confrontation with anti-union laws. Almost all unions have policies committing them to campaign for the abolition of these laws, but these policies are rarely acted on, even to the limited extent of mentioning them in speeches.
With the Tories planning to impose yet more restrictions, the labour movement must urgently step up our collective efforts to campaign against anti-strike laws.
Emergency protest at Parliament, date TBC
Rail union RMT has announced to members in a circular that the TUC plans to call an emergency protest in Westminster on the evening of the next parliamentary reading of the Minimum Services Levels Bill.
This will take place sometimes between 10-25 May. (See below for the text of the RMT circular.)
Protests coinciding with parliamentary readings are important. When we know when the bill will be heard, a protest must certainly be called. However, the TUC – or a coalition of individual unions – does not have to, and should not, wait for the parliamentary timetable to be announced to call action. Unions must call a national demonstration, on a Saturday, and throw real resources into mobilising for it.
Several unions already have policy calling for this: it’s time they were enacted.
Dear Colleagues,
PROTECT THE RIGHT TO STRIKE – FIGHT THE ANTI-STRIKES Bill – UPDATE
I wanted to provide you with an important update on our campaign against the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill which continues to pose a fundamental threat to our democratic and human right to withdraw our labour.
Since I last wrote to you RMT along with TUC and other unions are still strongly campaigning against the Bill. The Bill has slightly stalled in the House of Lords with many peers ridiculing the Bill for “wasting Peers’ time” and that Government “should go back to the drawing board.”
However, the Government is still pushing ahead with this shocking Bill and the report stage in the House of Lords is set to take place this Wednesday 26 April. It will then go back to the House of Commons, with the final Commons debate probably being sometime 10-25 May but this has not been confirmed yet
On the night of the final Commons votes, the TUC is calling an Emergency Protest outside Parliament with the date to be confirmed but, like the previous Emergency Protests we have called, we’ll likely only get a week’s notice.
It is absolutely vital that we keep up the pressure against this bill so please be prepared and on-standby to urgently mobilise for an emergency protest at some point between 10-25 May and I will be in touch with more details as soon as I have them.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Lynch
General Secretary
Government threatens nurses’ strike: demonstrate at Royal Courts of Justice, 9:30am, 27 April
The government is pursuing a legal action against the upcoming planned strike by nurses’ union RCN. The legal action claims that, because RCN’s current ballot mandate expires on 2 May, the final day of their planned strike is invalid and should be cancelled.
Laws around balloting are deliberately restrictive, designed to slow down and obstruct workers’ action. RCN has called a protest outside the Royal Courts of Justice for 9:30am on Thursday 27 April, see details below. Please attend if you can.
TALKS NOT COURTS!
The RCN has been notified court proceedings are going ahead on Thursday 
CALL OUT: Come along to a demo at the High Court
Let’s show the government they should be negotiating, not trying to bully RCN members by trying to curtail your strikes through the courts!
Where? Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
When? 9.30AM onwards on Thursday 27 April
Can you make it? For more info email Emma – emma.laws@rcn.org.uk)
We Make Tomorrow conference, 20 May
Free Our Unions has worked extensively to draw links between the fight against anti-strike laws and the fight for climate justice. We have collaborated with networks in the climate movement such as Earth Strike UK, via the “Empower the Unions” initiative.
We’re therefore pleased to promote the We Make Tomorrow conference, organised by the Trade Union Caucus of the Climate Justice Coalition, which takes place in Manchester on 20 May:
“We Make Tomorrow is a one day conference for building workers’ power on climate and crisis. The conference will dig into how rising energy prices, inflation, falling wages and the climate crisis are not only connected but actually being driven by the same systems.
“Organised by the Trade Union Caucus of the Climate Justice Coalition, the conference brings together workers in key sectors with trade union officials, climate justice activists and scientists, providing an honest and open space to discuss the urgently needed strategies and tactics to build a tomorrow that works for the majority and not the billionaires.
“Register today to get involved and join the discussion on how we make concrete plans to build power in our workplaces and communities so that we can stop paying the price for the crimes of the billionaires and ultimately how we can retake control of an economy that is destroying people and the planet.”
Check out the conference website here.
Anti-strike law: what “defiance” means
By a Free Our Unions supporter
This article is a contribution to debate and discussion. To write a reply, please email freeourunions@gmail.com.
Fire Brigades Union leader Matt Wrack has called for a “mass movement of non-compliance” against the Minimum Service Legislation.
That’s good. But as I understand the legislation, “non-compliance” begs the question.
A union can refuse to enter into consultation about “minimum service” levels. Then, under the law, the levels are set by the government. A union can refuse to talk with the employer about which people will required to work on strike days to provide those levels. Then, under the law, the employer can name people unilaterally.
If the union refuses to “take reasonable steps to ensure that all members of the union who are identified in the work notice” will break the strike, then a court can grant an injunction against the whole industrial action.
And if the union can finesse it by a tongue-in-cheek “instruction” to members to comply, coupled with tacit union signals not to comply, then the boss can discipline those workers not complying. Under already-existing legislation, a court will grant an injunction against industrial action opposing the disciplinary action.
There is really no option of “non-compliance” just by folded arms. A union can really defy the legislation only by striking in direct conflict with an injunction.
Unions’ choice is to submit to the new law, or to go for high-stakes direct defiance (not just “non-compliance”) by strikes in conflict with injunctions.
Those strikes will make the union liable to a fine, or even to having its assets seized. The only answer then is further direct defiance, i.e. the union to appeal for wildcat action against the fine or seizure.
That will be a break from union policy ever since the Thatcher laws of the 1980s. We have had many strikes, generally workplace-level, in conflict with those laws, which the bosses and the government have considered too hot to handle with those laws. But not unions directly defying the courts.
Transferring assets abroad, as the National Union of Mineworkers tried to do in 1984-5, is not really an answer. Having accounts abroad so that the union cannot pay rent on its offices, wages to its officials, or strike-pay to its members, and has difficulty getting dues from its members, would paralyse union functioning as much as the government fining it.
In Australia, where anti-strike laws are harsher than they would be in Britain even with the Minimum Service Law, it has been fairly common for unions to strike in conflict with the law and pay the ensuing fines. But unions do that less and less. It’s not a long-term answer, because it erodes union capacities.
Direct defiance, breaking injunctions, can work, for the same reason that the bosses and the government have chosen not to deploy the laws against strikes. Strikes could push courts into imposing only nominal fines, and thus prepare the way for the Minimum Service Law to be abandoned as unworkable.
It won’t be easy. If employers and the government are cunning, they will make the prescribed “minimum service” really minimal, at first anyway. Employers will avoid naming union activists for the “minimum service” work. When individual workers defy “minimum service” prescriptions, strategically-thinking employers will impose only minor discipline (a written warning, say).
There will be many in the unions saying that we should box clever and find ways of effective industrial action while formally complying with “minimum service” law. In the short term it may be plausible.
Then, in the longer term, the government and employers can tighten the grip of the law, making the “minimum service” ever larger, the penalties for individual workers sharper, so that the law bites harder.
Cunning workarounds can also be counterproductive in the coming years, by giving an incoming Labour government an excuse on its promise to repeal the law – it seems to be doing little harm, Starmer can say, and in the meantime there are other priorities.
The first step is to get a proper national demonstration against the Minimum Service Law. But the next step – and it starts now: we walk on two legs – is to commit unions to defy injunctions introduced to implement that law.
Free Our Unions 