Invezz.com - The UK government is considering a significant change to strike legislation that would double the duration for which workers can take industrial action before requiring a new ballot.
As of now, when a workforce votes to strike, the mandate lasts for six months. After this period, unions must hold another vote to continue the action.
A recent consultation document suggests extending this mandate to a full year, citing the high likelihood of unions winning a second ballot and the unnecessary administrative costs associated with the existing six-month rule.
The proposal comes amid a backdrop of widespread strikes across sectors like transport, healthcare, and education, where staff, including railway workers, doctors, and teachers, have walked out in protest over pay and working conditions.
The last two years have seen over 5.7 million working days lost to strikes, marking the highest number in more than three decades, according to official data.
By extending the strike mandate duration, the government aims to reduce the frequency of reballoting and potentially foster a more cooperative dynamic between unions and employers.
A major overhaul in voting requirements
One of the more controversial aspects of the government’s proposal is to eliminate the requirement that at least 50% of a workforce participates in a strike vote for it to be valid.
Currently, for sectors classified as “important public services” like the NHS, 40% of the workforce must vote in favour for any industrial action to proceed.
The new legislation would do away with this threshold, simplifying the process for unions to organise strikes.
The suggested changes have drawn criticism from some quarters, with Conservative Shadow Business Secretary, Kevin Hollinrake, urging a reconsideration of the Employment Rights Bill.
He warned that the proposed changes could create “an existential crisis of a magnitude not seen since the pandemic” for businesses, potentially impacting jobs and the economy.
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner defended the changes, stating that the policies aim to “repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws,” and to modernise industrial relations.
Balancing union rights with business concerns
The government’s analysis, released earlier this week, estimates that the proposed reforms to workers’ rights could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually.
Despite the potential financial burden on companies, trade unions view the changes positively. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), welcomed the government’s “commitment to introduce a modern framework for industrial relations.”
The reforms under the Employment Rights Bill include measures that would make it easier for unions to gain recognition from employers. Under current rules, 10% of a workforce must be union members for an application to be made for recognition.
The government’s proposal suggests lowering this threshold to just 2%, making it simpler for unions to become the representative body for employees in negotiations over pay and working conditions.
Unions face challenges in gaining recognition
While the proposed changes could give unions more leverage, they also face challenges in gaining recognition from employers.
Trade unions have long argued that companies can manipulate workforce numbers by hiring additional staff to dilute the percentage of union members, thereby making it more difficult for unions to reach recognition thresholds.
This issue was highlighted in July when the GMB trade union narrowly lost a vote for recognition at Amazon’s Coventry Fulfilment Centre by just 28 votes.
The union accused Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) of intentionally hiring extra workers to undermine their bid for recognition. Amazon denied the allegations, maintaining that the recruitment was part of their standard business operations.
A changing landscape for industrial action
The government’s planned changes represent a major shift in the UK’s approach to managing industrial action and union recognition.
By extending strike mandates to a year and relaxing voting requirements, the reforms could lead to a wave of industrial actions, potentially reshaping the relationship between employers and employees across various sectors.
The financial implications for businesses and the broader economy remain a point of contention.
While unions see the proposed legislation as a necessary step towards improving workers’ rights, opponents argue that the changes could impose significant costs on companies, especially during a time of economic uncertainty.
As the Employment Rights Bill moves through the consultation phase, its final form and the balance it strikes between union empowerment and economic stability will be closely watched.