THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1976. Reaction to the law on strikes

Press, 24 August 1976, Page 16

THE PRESS TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1976. Reaction to the law on strikes

The great objection to the Government’s latest legislation on strikes is that it is inescapably provocative. The theory behind the legislation is that it will curb roiling strikes and the Government produced the law to arrest what it considered to be militant disruption of industry. Clearly such strikes are costly, and they diminish the means of the country as a whole to dispose of our most serious economic problems They also increase the cost of production in a way that is much more damaging than the conventional stoppage

While the Government has an obvious duty to watch over industrial relations, and to provide the legal framework for their conduct, any Government takes a risk when it produces a law that excites the antipathy of the union movement. The Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) may be correct when he says that many union members are in agreement with what the Government has done Whether he is right in saying that the “ average ” trade unionist wants no part in industrial confrontation is a claim that remains to be proved. It is probably impossible of proof. Even if the most moderately inclined union members make their feelings known to their leaders, the position already taken by the Federation of Labour and individual unions precludes any practical change in union attitudes in the immediate future.

The leadership of the federation is being tested by the objections raised by some unions and it is in this sense, particularly, that the legislation must be said to have provoked industrial disquiet Yet this does not mean that anything will be gained by any party on the industrial scene if some unions resolve to take industrial action merely to express their displeasure with the Government

The fact that some unions strenuously oppose the restriction oil rolling strikes is perfectly obvious. The new law, after all, was devised to ensure that unions would not calculate a programme of strikes that would disrupt whole industries, and the output of all employees, by successively withdrawing labour from sections of industry. The law does not, however, make allowance for the fact that in some circumstances a union may have good reason to call a stoppage, even if it does not have the support of associated unions

Such a law gives great discretion to an employer, who may now lay off other workers, without notice, if a stoppage means that the normal flow of work is upset. Even the uncertainty surrounding what the law means in respect of normal work is likely to lead to dispute. Although the action of the Government is based on w'hat it may properly consider is disruptive union action, the Government should take a hard look at the way the law has been drawn. The Government is not likely to repeal the law, but it might be persuaded to amend it in a way that leaves the way open to legitimate union action, but still prevents the destructive action to which the Government reasonably objects.

It is surely in this direction that unions should be turning their attention at present, rather than towards general protests about the law. Such protests will tell the Government nothing that’ it does not already know about the views of union leaders. Although union leaders may feel that they have been provoked into opposing the amended law. they also have an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate where they stand on the problem of how to find a remedy to this country’s economic problems Employers have no less a responsibility to view the revised law with caution.