THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1976. Useless industrial law

Press, 8 September 1976, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1976. Useless industrial law

The Government should abandon its legislation against political strikes. This kind of industrial legislation is futile. The whole idea of imposing fines for failing to work is foreign to this country and the Government should not pretend that, in circumstances serious enough to apply such law. the result w’ould be anything but industrial chaos. If the Government believes that putting such legislation into the Statute Books is an ultimate deterrent to political action by unions, it is very much mistaken. When unions go on strike—for any reason—their members suffer the penalty of going without pay. In most instances strike decisions are not made lightly. The fact remains that some unions have an exceptional propensity to call for a stoppage of work and the results are unquestionably damaging to the economy. To some degree or other, everyone is worse off. But it must also be allowed that, without the power to strike, unions carry little weight. This does not justify what the Government chooses to call the “ nonindustrial ” strike. But, given the widest interpretation of what “ non-industrial ” might mean, occasions for using the proposed legislation will be rare. Every refinement of the definition must narrow the application of the law, and any attempt to apply it is likely to be countered by arguments that a strike

has industrial origins. In any event, by the time the arguments have been sorted out the damage will have been done. The Government is talking about legislation that has very little to do with the kind of stoppages with which the country has been faced in recent weeks. Exceptional economic circumstances have caused the Government to impose restrictions on wage bargaining. These restrictions are necessary; but clearly they have not been understood by all union members to be necessary for the well-being of the country. When remedies are disagreeable many people prefer the disease. The answer lies in persuasion and clear reasoning. Some union leaders may be ready to resist both. Certainly the union movement itself has not come forward with any alternative for solving the country’s economic difficulties. So it remains the duty of the Government to persuade union members —like all other members of the community—that the remedy is worth while. On the industrial front, nothing is less appropriate at present than legislation that is largely irrelevant, generally provocative, and incapable of useful application. The Government needs the co-operation of union members as much as it needs the co-operation of all other sections of the community. It should put aside its amendments to the industrial law.