The news of ASLEF reaching a proposed settlement with the UK Government to end the national rail strikes has been met with (at times sensationalist) opprobrium from parts of the media, often parroting the Conservative Party attack line. The stated reasons for this are that Labour failed to secure ‘productivity reforms’ (though what these reforms could be are not explicitly identified) and that ASLEF is about to embark on 22 days of action at LNER (in a local dispute) despite the pay offer.
The action at LNER, owned by the state but run separately with the previous management structure still in place, is apparently an ‘embarrassment’ for Labour, even though it is not the direct employer involved in this dispute. This would be like arguing that a local dispute between, say, doctors and management at a local hospital is the fault of DHSC. More astute observers will have noted that LNER was the only TOC to attempt to use the minimum service legislation (a man-test it quickly lost, and still had the autonomy to withdraw from) during rail strikes, so there might be fairly fundamental issues in the relations between employer and employee there.
The unspoken part of the reaction against ASLEF is the disgust at working-class people having the temerity to use a marketised system to give themselves a good wage. ASLEF’s greatest crime appears to be that it is a well-organised union which has won a solid but unspectacular pay award to keep the wages of its members level with inflation. This affront to the natural order has even led to one entity putting out a hastily cobbled-together report explaining that more train drivers are needed to create a more flexible labour market and weaken the power of ASLEF. Nicholas Ridley is turning in his grave at such infantile ineptitude.
The distaste for Labour’s approach to this situation seems to be feeding into a wider anxiety- some of it real, some of it confected- that Labour has lost control of trade unions, and is giving out ‘inflation-busting pay rises’, even though the recent pay offer to ASLEF is below inflation, as it is divided into three different segments for the 22-25 financial years. Aiding and abetting this poor understanding of economics (the impact of public sector pay increases on inflation is complex) is an equally poor one of industrial relations, as some theorise that settling with one group of workers will embolden either the same group of workers in the future or others playing catch-up. What this analysis misses is that not all workers have the same leverage or industrial culture and it is perfectly possible for the government to give different pay awards to different public services.
Regardless of this, concerns that the government might be showing it is too soft on unions (reinforced by lobbying efforts against Labour’s proposed workers’ rights reforms) has led to suggestions, including from one aspiring ‘ard man in the Labour Party, that Labour needs to do more to be seen to stand up to the Trade Union ingrates and should pick a fight with one of them. Presumably, in the ideal world for this anonymous briefer, Starmer walks into the next TULO meeting and promptly lamps Mick Whelan (or something to that effect), before looking around for the next General Secretary to start on. Of course conduct in one dispute will have no impact on the tone of another or wider industrial relations.
What this masterplan does not explain is how Labour is meant to pick a fight with whichever group of workers it gets on its wheel of strife and, perhaps more importantly, how it is meant to win said fight. Realistically, public sector industrial disputes in natural monopolies are hard to ‘win’, some may point to the Thatcher government’s victory in the Miners’ strike in 1984, but the Thatcher government still lost to public sector strikes from ambulance and railway workers in 1989. More recently, and perhaps more pertinently, the New Labour government had to settle for a score draw with the FBU in 2003. This was a dispute which, in classic Labour fashion, descended into name-calling (Blair branded the FBU branded ‘Scargillite’) and ended with a former darling of the trade union movement now at the top of Government, John Prescott, reaching for legislation after failing to strike-break with the army.
Despite not losing the dispute per se, and exerting its position to the extent the FBU disaffiliated in 2004, Labour still had to agree to the Warwick Agreement with its affiliated unions in the summer of July 2004 after its military activity in the Middle-East had rendered it vulnerable. Fortunately for those wanting a fight between a Labour Government and organised labour they will probably not have to wait long, as sooner or later a clash will happen just by virtue of the government being a large employer. This brings us back to the railways, Labour is committed to nationalising rail and, consequently, becoming the direct employer, and no employer always sees eye to eye with its employees, particularly on the question of ‘reform’. Although Labour will try to run the railways collaboratively (and one hopes, actually invest in them), there will be disagreements, and these may boil over into industrial action. Trying to establish a productive working relationship with one of the key stakeholders (ASLEF) and resolving a dispute that had already cost millions is not surrendering to trade union tyranny, but sensible engagement. What is concerning is that it’s growing increasingly clear that too much of the political and media profession sees any trade union action as fundamentally illegitimate.