Should strikes in public services be banned?

No one would ever question the right to strike by any worker. It is the ultimate deterrent. But when a strike directly hits other workers and the industrial well-being of a nation, it makes you think that perhaps strike action should be curtailed. The strikes on public transport in Britain this week probably cost the British economy many millions of pounds and thousands of workers had the option of either staying at home or finding another route to work, which was both costly and timely. So should workers of a vital service such as public transport be allowed to strike on mass? Well, the simple answer is no.

In Spain the government always demands that minimum services are guaranteed, so in other words there is some sort of service. It is usually about 20 percent of the total service. This is a good idea. It means that workers can effectively prove a point and go on strike but at the same time some trains, buses etc are still running. Granted it is not a normal service but at least it is something and means that some workers can take their usual route to work. Strikes should be the final straw in any dispute. All other avenues of negotiation should have been exhausted before an actual strike takes place.

Let’s face it;in some cases industrial action is like blackmail; if you don´t get your demand then there is a mass walkout until the dispute is resolved. Now, obviously everyone believes that industrial action is the right avenue in support of a valid pay claim or for better working conditions. But it shouldn´t hit fellow workers to such a degree that it makes their life almost impossible. I think the army has a role to play in strikes which can effectively hit the well-being of the nation. When the fire service goes on strike the army steps in, in the interest of national safety and perhaps the army could be given a role in public transport strikes. The British armed services are lucky to have a large number of trained drivers who could easily drive a coach. Perhaps, they could be retrained to drive tube trains when and if it is necessary. A country can´t be held to ransom because of industrial action. One thing is an industrial stoppage another thing is bringing the country to a standstill.

No: Ray Fleming
"Right to strike is fundamental to trade unionism."

The current strikes of staff of the British Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT) are causing huge inconvenience for travellers in southern England, especially the many commuters living in coastal towns and needing to travel daily to work in London. The strikes are following the intention of the operating railway company to dispose of traditional guards by giving their signalling responsibility to the driver and in doing so making the trains "driver-only". The union believes that this economy has safety problems and that the guards should be retained; on some services a twelve-car train will carry one thousand passengers at rush hour and may have stops at which large numbers of passengers have to leave or join the trains. There are two right-wing objections to the strikes, one that the operational change has been in use without difficulty by other railway services, the other that the union is using the strike as part of a drive to bring down the current Conservative government. A third possibility, that the reduction of railway staff is a straightforward economic measure is not heard as often.

There is no doubt that the RMT’s strike is having a serious negative effect on the lives of large numbers of southern travellers and others dependent on them and they are expanding to other parts of the UK. Therefore, should there be legislation that would make such an interference with necessary public services impossible? There have been occasional hints in that direction.

Margaret Thatcher was probably more harrassed by strikes than any other modern prime minister and once was pushed in a TV intervierw to say that she might "outlaw strikes on essential services" but never did so. David Cameron made a similar hint but never carried it through. Recent Conservative amendments to the Trade Union Act have not ventured into this territory. The truth is that legislation to identify what is an "essential" service to justify legal intervention would be extremely difficult and its operation even more so -- counter productive most probably. Instead as has been seen in other cases, that of junior NHS doctors for instance, the need is for much better mediation by government ministers and large trade unions.