For a generation, trade unions in Britain have suffered numerical decline. Yet pockets of concentrated strength remain. Heedless of the history of public attitudes to such behaviour, some unions are once more exercising power without respon- sibility. Strikes affecting rail and air travel and the postal service are set to cause considerable inconvenience for many over Christmas and the new year.
The purported justifications for these actions are threadbare. The government should now consider emergency legislation to curb union militancy in the transport sector. It is a matter of fairness and the public interest that unions should find it harder to engage in disruption and grandstanding driven by political ideology.
The businesses set to be affected over the next fortnight include Southern Rail, British Airways cabin services, Virgin Atlantic and the Post Office. In addition, some 1,500 check-in staff, baggage handlers and cargo crew at 18 airports across the country will strike for 48 hours from December 23. In truth the postal workers’ strike, over jobs, pay and pensions, is likely to have little effect. Fewer than 100 branches nationwide are set to be closed. Having said that, the inconvenience to local residents is undoubtedly severe, especially for those who are less mobile. Yet competition in delivery services and changes in technology have meant that postal workers’ actions are far less damaging to the public than they once were.
National postal strikes in 1971 and 1988 were bitterly fought but in the long term futile for the workers involved. In the 1980s businesses made a switch to commerce by fax rather than post. The range of alternative services and providers is a counter to the efforts of the Communication Workers Union to disrupt the service.
The great exception to this tempering of the power of industrial militancy is the rail service. The RMT and Aslef trade unions oppose plans by the owners of Southern, Govia Thameslink Railway, to extend the use of driver-only trains. There is absolutely no merit in the unions’ case. They maintain that trains operated only by drivers are a safety hazard despite the fact that the practice is common across the world and that it has been designated as safe by the rail watchdog. The rationale of the strike is not to safeguard passengers but to maintain an outdated restrictive practice and provide jobs. Conductors are not necessary and Southern has undertaken that there will be no redundancies for the duration of its franchise.
Advertisement
If the striking rail unions prevail, they will be encouraged in opposing other measures that reduce costs. The public will pay an even higher price if the unions are allowed to obstruct productivity enhancing technology in future. The unnecessarily high costs of operating a rail service will be passed on to the public in fare rises.
There is a sinister subtext to this union disruption that goes beyond mere Luddism. Militant union leaders make clear that they are seeking the downfall of the Conservative government. They will not get it given the enfeebled state of the Labour opposition, which has, predictably under its leadership, voiced support for the strikers.
Yet the resurgence of this radicalism suggests that the government needs to introduce emergency legislation to curb strikes in critical infrastructure such as the railways. The ability of workers to withdraw labour is a vital liberty but it is not universal. It cannot hold if a society is to be defended against crime or external aggression.
In the case of a transport service for which the public has no real alternative, there should be a requirement that strike action be proportional to the complaint. The inconvenience suffered by the public through this unmerited and specious action is far beyond any reasonable conception of just cause.