The trade union bill, currently going through the House of Lords does more than it says on the tin.
It has been presented as an opportunity to modernise industrial relations and to give members a greater influence within their unions. Its outcome, if unamended will reduce members’ opportunities to stand up for their rights at work and will take a side swipe at funding for both the Labour party and the Trade Union Congress.
As it stands the bill seeks to abolish, within the public sector, the collection of union subs (check off) at source, and to reduce facility time for local reps. Across the whole economy, it seeks to change from an opting out to an opting in payment model for the political levy; to introduce thresholds for participation in and time limits on strike ballots; to allow the use of agency labour to take the place of a striking worker; and to change the role and remit of the certification officer.
I asked Nick Boles, the minister responsible for the bill, why they were changing the check off system. He told me, straight faced, that its purpose was to help improve relations between the union rep and the member by providing an opportunity for them to talk to each other and for greater understanding of each other’s views.
I cannot think of one employer who will welcome the idea of the union rep wandering around the workplace, collecting money, finding the change, having a cosy chat. Check off is transparent and employers also like it.
It is a racing certainty that the abolition of check off will reduce membership. Bad news for the TUC, a globally respected trade union umbrella organisation.
Add together changes to check off with the opt in requirement for a political fund and the money available for campaigning or to fund the Labour party will be severely reduced.
This is a further example of a government which seeks to stymie debate and to limit the influence of voices with which they disagree.
Proposed boundary changes, electoral reform – almost certain to reduce the votes of the opposition – English votes for English laws and the reduction in short money, are all examples of a government introducing procedural changes designed to quieten the opposition.
Requiring a certain percentage of participation in a strike ballot is not unreasonable, nor is setting a time limit between the ballot and the strike action but our proposal for electronic balloting which would help participation currently falls on deaf ears.
The Recruitment Employers’ Confederation has expressed concern regarding the use of agency labour in what they describe as possibly difficult industrial circumstances. They also do not think that there are professionals available waiting to step into the breech.
The changed remit for the certification officer makes that person investigator, judge and jury. A judicial role operating outside of judicial rules.
All of this adds up to a failure to work with organised labour and employers to address the real labour market needs of better training, fairness and transparency – to name but a few.
———————————
Margaret Prosser is a Labour peer. She is a former deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union and a former president of the Trades Union Congress
———————————