New Business Secretary vows to reform strike rules
13 May 2015
Sajid Javid, appointed as Business Secretary in the new Conservative Government, has announced that ‘significant changes’ to public sector strike laws will be included in the Queen’s Speech.
The changes will apply to essential public services such as those affecting health, transport, fire services and schools. Under current rules, a strike is valid if it supported by a majority of those balloted.
However, the changes will mean a trade union calling for a strike in those public services will need the backing of 40% of eligible union members, and there will need to be a minimum 50% turnout in strike ballots.
Speaking on the BBC’s Today programme, Mr Javid said: ‘What people are fed up of is strike action that hasn't been properly supported by the members of the relevant union. We've seen, including in the last five years, strike action that took place where perhaps only 10% to 15% of the members of that profession actually voted for it, and that's not right, it's unfair, especially when it comes to essential public services. Think of the impact it has - transport, health services - on ordinary people, going about their daily jobs - they should be in people's minds’.
The Government will also remove restrictions on the use of agency staff to replace striking workers, a move which was welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI).
Katja Hall, CBI deputy director general, said: ‘For nearly five years the CBI has been saying that recruiting agency workers to plug gaps during a strike is not about threatening strikers' jobs, but providing essential cover during periods of action so businesses can continue to serve their customers. The abolition of this restriction is long overdue’.
She also welcomed the minimum turnout and vote thresholds for strike ballots, saying: ‘The introduction of a threshold is an important - but fair - step to rebalance the interests of employers, employees, the public and the rights of trade unions’.
However, unions have strongly opposed the proposed reforms. Mick Cash of the RMT union said that trade unions would ‘unite to fight these attacks’, while Frances O’Grady of the TUC said: ‘The government's proposals on union ballots will make legal strikes close to impossible. Union negotiators will be left with no more power than Oliver Twist when he asked for more’. http://www.certax.co.uk/news/business-news/archive/article/2015/May/new-business-secretary-vows-to-reform-strike-rules
Then there's something on trade agreements from project syndicate - the author is well left of centre, but that does not mean you should dismiss his views; there are some really good evaluation points in here you can use to question the value of the round of trade deals currently being negotiated:
The Secret Corporate Takeover by Joseph Stieglitz
NEW YORK – The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,”as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant.
It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.
Perhaps the most invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of its “partners” have property protections and judicial systems that are as good as its own.
The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America’s own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from regulatory changes.
This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking. The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits.
In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health problems (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from killing more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions.
When I chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called “regulatory takings.” They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in the US Congress.
But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that we know what is happening.
Fundamental to America’s system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a “judge” in one case and an advocate in a related case.
The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments – on labor and environmental standards, for example – citizens, unions, and civil-society groups have no recourse.
If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.
American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.
And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and then sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.
If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private, expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies, but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.
Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific answer with a resounding no.
project syndicate
No comments:
Post a Comment